[Mb-civic] Re: Mb-civic Digest, Vol 4, Issue 52

[tomharper at ekit.com]

 Micheal, thanks for sending this info, it is incredibly engrossing, 
more and more fuel thrown into my political stomach, I hope that one 
day i overflow with the desire to help change the things that just do 
not serve us, and learn how I can help and work to achieve that. Hope 
you are well, I may be back out in LA sometime in november, I shall 
keep you posted, Tom harper 
x                                                                     
                                                                      
                                                  Quoting mb-civic-
request at islandlists.com on Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:53:13 -0700:

Send Mb-civic mailing list submissions to
	mb-civic at islandlists.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
visit
	http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic
or, via email, send a message with subject or body
'help' to
	mb-civic-request at islandlists.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
	mb-civic-owner at islandlists.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Mb-civic digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. The Nation | Endorsement (Barbara Siomos)
   2. A washingtonpost.com article from:
michael at intrafi.com
      (Itzak Rabin)
   3. Washington Post backs Kerry (Harold Sifton)
   4. What's Going Right in Iraq LATimes
(Cheeseburger)
   5. Broadway on PBS (Barbara Siomos)
   6. Please sign this important petition (Michael
Butler)
   7. FW: NPR and National Endowment For The Arts
(Michael Butler)
   8. FW: Lebanonwire.com A Bush pre-election strike
on Iran
      'imminent' (Golsorkhi)
   9. FW: Why Iran Wants Four More Years
(Golsorkhi)
  10. A VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE (Michael Butler)
  11. Urgent: October Surprise? US to attack Iran??
Just a	rumor?
      (ean at sbcglobal.net)
  12. What Bush supporters think!
(ean at sbcglobal.net)
  13. The Bright Side Of Iraq (Flipper)
  14. Beyond the Call of Duty (Michael Butler)
  15. FW: BREAKING: Massive Cache of Explosives
Missing in Iraq
      (Michael Butler)
  16. NYTimes.com Article: Tracking the Weapons:
Huge Cache of
      Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq
(michael at intrafi.com)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:56:17 -0400
From: barbarasiomos38 at webtv.net (Barbara Siomos)
Subject: [Mb-civic] The Nation | Endorsement
To: mb-civic at islandlists.com
Message-ID:
<24362-417C16F1-652 at storefull-3214.bay.webtv.net>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1

    John Kerry for President
    The Nation | Endorsement
    08 November 2004 Issue

    The presidential campaign debates are over, and
the time for
decision has come. The Nation endorses Senator John
Kerry to be the next
President of the United States.

    Any stocktaking must begin, of course, by
comparing the
records of Kerry and George W. Bush. Yet the upshot
of such a detailed
comparison, though entirely favoring Kerry, is not
our principal reason
for supporting him. To make clear why, despite
strong disagreements with
Kerry, we not only recommend a vote for him but do
so with fervor, we
must step back from the candidates and their
positions and set forth an
independent view of what we believe are the stakes
in this election.

    The most important is the consequence it will
have in what
has emerged as a crisis of American democracy. The
crisis began on
December 12, 2000, when Bush was chosen to be
President by the Supreme
Court. The gift of a true electoral mandate now to
this previously
unelected President would give fresh legitimacy and
momentum to all his
disastrous policies. And that new momentum could in
turn place our
constitutional system itself at risk.

    This magazine's disagreements with Kerry are
deep and touch
on fundamental matters. We believed that the
invasion of Iraq was "the
wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time"
(as he now describes
it) before the war was ever launched; he has come to
that conclusion
only recently, having voted to authorize the war. We
believe the United
States should withdraw from Iraq; he wants to "win"
the war there. We
think the military budget should be cut; he plans to
increase it, adding
40,000 troops. (For what, exactly? to fight another
wrong war, at the
wrong place, at the wrong time?) We reject
pre-emptive war; he embraces
it. We oppose the wall that Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon is
building on Palestinian lands; he supports it. We
believe in the
elimination of all nuclear weapons; he wants only to
stop their spread.
He calls for significant expansion of healthcare; we
call for a
single-payer system that would cover everyone. He
opposes gay marriage;
we back it. If he wins the election, The Nation will
pursue each of
these differences vigorously.

    But while we have sharp differences with Kerry,
we believe
he has the qualities required for the presidency. He
is more than
"anybody but Bush." His instincts are decent. He is
a man of high
intelligence, deep knowledge and great resolve. At
times in his
life--notably, when he opposed the Vietnam War--he
has shown exemplary
courage. He respects the law. He believes in
cooperation with other
countries and has the inclination and ability to
bring America out of
its current isolation and back into the family of
nations. As a senator,
he demonstrated concern for social welfare and has
backed this up with
enlightened policy proposals. He has supported civil
rights and labor
rights and opposed racism. He has supported the
rights of women,
including the right to an abortion. He has been an
advocate of nuclear
arms control and opposed the almost incomprehensibly
provocative nuclear
policies of the Bush Administration. He would
rescind the most unfair of
Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. He would be a
friend of the environment
and return the United States to the negotiations on
global warming.

    The Bush Record

    As for Bush, where to begin the list of his
mistakes,
delusions, deceptions, follies, tragedies and
crimes? Where to end it?

    He failed to respond to repeated clear warnings
of an Al
Qaeda attack ("Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the
U.S.," the CIA told
him) and displayed startling incompetence when the
attack came. Then he
tried to cover up both failures by opposing the
formation of the
September 11 Commission, obstructing the committee's
work once it was
formed and denying key findings once they were
disclosed. (To this day,
Vice President Cheney asserts a link between Al
Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein.)

    In the name of fighting terror, Bush waged a war
in Iraq
that had nothing to do with terrorism and was as
unjustified when it was
begun as, after the loss of thousands of Iraqi and
American lives, it is
unwinnable now. He has inaugurated an immoral and
unsustainable policy
of global hegemony based on military force,
estranged most of the
country's principal friends around the world and
dismayed the world at
large--which has begun, indirectly but pervasively,
to resist US
domination. He mocked the United Nations as
"irrelevant" and defied the
Security Council. Today our forces are overstretched
in pursuit of
delusional goals.

    Bush's policies have turned away from the
country's
tradition of seeking disarmament exclusively by
diplomatic means and
adopted force as the mainstay of its
nonproliferation efforts, violently
pursuing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, where
there were none, and
overlooking them in Pakistan and North Korea, where
they existed. All
the while, his Administration further provoked and
disturbed the world
by pursuing the development of new, "usable"
varieties of nuclear
weapons, to be employed for new purposes against new
targets, mostly in
the Third World. He has systematically cast aside or
weakened
environmental initiatives, domestic and
international. He withdrew from
negotiations to address global warming, which except
for nuclear war is
the gravest danger facing the world; sponsored a
Clear Skies Act that
fouled the air; gutted regulations limiting
strip-mining; and sold off
public lands to oil, gas, timber and mining
companies; rejected fuel
conservation measures; tried to suppress or
repudiate the science on
which knowledge of environmental hazards is based.

    And while thus conspiring to discredit these and
other
scientific findings, he has pandered to a "base" of
religious fanatics,
many of whom are looking forward to a day of
"rapture" when Jesus
returns to earth and kills everyone but them. His
attitude to the
factual world in general is one of hostility and
rejection. He has made
fraud and fantasy foundations of his Administration.
His own belief in
something--that Iraq was a threat to the United
States, for
example--appears to be evidence enough for him that
it is true. One of
his advisers has mocked his critics by stating that
they live in a
"reality-based community," explaining, "We're an
empire now, and when we
act, we create our own reality."

    Bush has by almost every measure worsened the US
economy and
set it on a path to likely disaster. He has taken
hundreds of billions
of dollars from the poor and people of ordinary
income and given it to
the rich through tax cuts (if you dare to point this
out, you are
accused of waging "class warfare") while driving the
country into
unprecedented federal debt and trade deficits,
delivering the nation's
finances to the decisions of foreign creditors. He
has increased our
dependence on foreign energy sources. His approach
to the economy and
our resources is the same as to the
environment--this putative believer
in a "responsibility society" strip-mines the future
to gratify the
present.

    Bush has broken his oath to uphold the laws of
the United
States. He asserted and made use of an array of
"inherent" powers
nowhere mentioned in the Constitution: to lock up
and place in solitary
confinement American citizens and others, with no
access to courts or
even legal representation; to withhold information
from the public and
Congressional committees; to detain hundreds of
people outside domestic
and international law in the legal no man's land of
Guantánamo; and
to permit the torture of prisoners.

    He has governed through fear and intimidation.
His party
will not tolerate dissent either in its own ranks,
from which it purges
any moderate voice, or in the country at large,
where his Administration
insinuates that his opponents are in league with
America's enemies. At
his rallies, composed of carefully vetted
supporters, people who oppose
him have been thrown out and even arrested.

    A Dangerous Mandate

    A matchup of the records of the two candidates
only begins
to measure the stakes in this year's election. These
come fully into
view only in the larger context of a deeper crisis
that has overtaken
the American system of government. To begin with,
the irregular
procedure of the last election lends a special
importance to this one.
In 2000 candidate Bush, who lost the popular contest
by half a million
votes and was put into the presidency by a Supreme
Court decision,
failed to receive a popular mandate. However, he
embarked on a radical,
right-wing course anyway, compounding the insult to
democracy. Yet it is
so far only the government that has asserted global
imperial ambition,
waged aggressive war on false pretexts, condoned
torture, strengthened
corporate influence over politics, turned its back
on the natural
environment and spurned global public opinion. If
Bush is now elected,
then a national majority--a far weightier
thing--will stand behind these
things. The consequences would be profound. A
crippled presidency would
begin to walk on two legs. At home, public
affirmation would turn the
record of the first term, now having been inspected
and approved by the
people, into the starting point for an accelerated
movement in the same
general direction. Bush has already put through a
new round of federal
budget-wrecking corporate tax cuts, called for new
repressive
legislation in a Patriot II act and clearly
announced his desire to
"democratize" not just Iraq but the entire Middle
East. Abroad, such a
vote would deepen and confirm the United States'
separation from the
rest of the world, enclosing it in an eccentric and
dangerous
mini-climate of ignorance and lies.

    On the other hand, if Bush is defeated, his
entire
presidency will acquire the aspect of an aberration,
a mistake that has
been corrected, and the American people will be able
to say: We never
accepted Bushism. We rejected the brutality, the
propaganda, the
misbegotten wars, the imperial arrogance. And we
never, ever chose
George W. Bush to be President of the United States.

    What Is at Stake

    But even these stakes are not the largest on the
table in
November. The largest and most important is the
protection of American
democracy. It is always difficult while enjoying the
comforts and
privileges of taken-for-granted liberties to imagine
that they could be
lost; but the elements of Bush's misrule have
plainly converged to form
this threat. It is the wars of aggression designed
to expand imperial
sway abroad that produce the fear that fuels his
campaign. It is the
transfer of money from the poor or average majority
to the rich few and
corporations that cultivates the allegiance of the
corporate chieftains
who swell Bush's campaign coffers while at the same
time helping to
bring the news media, now owned mostly by large
companies, to heel. It
is the media that amplify his Administration's war
propaganda while
failing to expose the deceptions put forward as
justification for war
and puffing up the bubble of illusion whose creation
is perhaps the
Administration's top priority. And it is government
secrecy and Justice
Department repression and a right-wing judiciary
that chills the dissent
that tries to puncture the bubble of illusion. The
upshot is a
concentration of power in the Republican Party that
has no parallel in
American history, including the Gilded Age and the
Nixon era.

    It is not only all three branches of government
that have
fallen largely into the same hands; it is the
corporations, the military
(which tends to vote Republican) and, increasingly,
the communications
industry, which are either propaganda arms of the
party, as in the case
of Fox News and other outlets of the Rupert Murdoch
media empire, or
else simply bow to the pressure of Administration
threats and popular
anxiety.

    Even before Bush's selection by Supreme Court
fiat in 2000,
a dangerous pattern had asserted itself at the top
levels of American
institutional life. The Republican Party embarked on
a process of using
legitimately won power to acquire more power
illegitimately. In the
impeachment proceedings against President Clinton
for lying to a grand
jury about sex, the Republican majority in Congress
abused its power in
the legislative branch to try to strike down the
leader of the rival
executive branch. The attempt failed. In the
election of 2000, the party
in effect abused the judicial power to seize the
presidency for itself,
and this time the attempt succeeded. The deed was in
fact a culmination
of a long, deliberate (if not conspiratorial)
campaign of politicization
of the judiciary, pushed by right-wing legislators
as well as such
groups as the Federalist Society. In a series of
reapportionment
battles, notably the one waged by House majority
leader Tom DeLay in
Texas, the party used legislative power to entrench
itself in that same
legislature. Meanwhile, a web of think tanks and
other institutions,
supposedly independent but actually de facto
instruments of the
Republican Party, was created. They cooperated in
vetting political
loyalists for government posts and in flooding the
news media with
apologists for the party and its policies. Under
DeLay's leadership, the
Congressional Republicans, leaving no stone
unturned, have sought to
take over even the lobbying establishment of
Washington by threatening
firms that hire former Democrats to work for them.

    The persistent theme of these policies and
actions, domestic
and international, is to acquire power--to seize it,
to increase it and
to keep it for good. A systemic crisis--a threat to
the Constitution of
the United States--has taken shape. At the end of
this road is an
implied vision of a different system: a world run by
the United States
and a United States run permanently by the
Republican Party, which is to
say imperial rule abroad, one-party rule at home.
Somewhere along that
road lies a point of no return. It is in the nature
of warnings in
general that you cannot know whether the danger in
question will come,
or be averted by timely action, or perhaps never
present itself at all.
But it's also in the nature of warnings that one
must act on them before
it is too late, and this is especially true in the
case of threats to
democracy. That is why the danger to democracy takes
primacy over other
perils that are in themselves greater, including
nuclear war and
irreversible damage to the ecosphere through global
warming. (It is
notable that none of these three perils has been
more than glancingly
mentioned in the election debates that have just
ended.)

    No one can know when or how the decisive test of
democracy
might arrive. It could come quickly, perhaps in a
crackdown following
another terrorist attack on American soil, this time
conceivably on a
far greater scale than September 11, or it could
come slowly, in a
protraction of the process, already well under way,
of gradual
strangulation of independent institutions, amounting
to a coup in
slow-motion--a hardening of an informal monopoly of
power into a formal
monopoly--leaving the institutions of democracy
technically intact but
corrupted and hollowed out from within, helpless to
resist a central
authority that has drawn all real power into its own
hands.

    Although the precise steps by which a systemic
breakdown
might occur are obscure, most of the main elements
of the danger seem to
be contained in microcosm in one episode--the
torture at the Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq and elsewhere in the United States'
nascent global gulag
archipelago. The story begins with a secret memo
from Alberto Gonzales,
the White House counsel to the President and most
frequently mentioned
name for a Bush appointment to the Supreme Court,
recommending that he
issue a "finding" that neither international law, in
the form of the
Geneva Conventions, nor US law, in the shape of the
War Crimes Act (18
US Code, Section 2441) was applicable to abuses of
prisoners in
Afghanistan. The "war on terror," he said, was a
"new paradigm,"
rendering provisions of the Geneva Conventions
"quaint." As for US law,
a presidential determination would help tormentors
brought to justice by
creating "a reasonable basis in law that Section
2441 does not apply,
which would provide a solid defense to any future
prosecution." Even
before the crimes were committed, the White House
was planning how to
beat the rap. In one short memo, a new vision of law
came into view. In
this vision, the executive was freed from legal
accountability as well
as Congressional oversight, while at the same time
the individual person
was stripped of his fundamental human rights. It was
law--if "law" is
the right word for it at all--cut to imperial
specifications.

    A blizzard of other memos justifying the abuse
of prisoners
followed from lawyers at the Pentagon and the
Justice Department, and
soon Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had authorized
several new varieties of
torment for the prisoners at Guantánamo. Not long
after that, the
superintendent of Guantánamo, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey
Miller, traveled
to Iraq to teach the command there the new
interrogation arts. To the
surprise of the Administration, the war was not
going well, and the
military command was hungry for intelligence from
the prisoners at Abu
Ghraib and elsewhere. A memo had gone out from a
captain in intelligence
stating, "The gloves are coming off gentlemen
regarding these detainees.
Col. Boltz has made it clear that we want these
individuals broken."

    They were. In the recently published report "AR
15-6
Investigation of the Abu Ghraib Detention Facility
and 205th Military
Intelligence Brigade" by Maj. Gen. George Fay, cited
in The New York
Review of Books by Mark Danner, we read:
In October 2003, DETAINEE-07, reported alleged
multiple incidents of
physical abuse while in Abu Ghraib. DETAINEE-07 was
an MI hold and
considered of potentially high value. He was
interrogated on 8, 21 and
29 October; 4 and 23 November and 5 December.
DETAINEE-07's claims of
physical abuse (hitting) started on his first day of
arrival. He was
left naked in his cell for extended periods, cuffed
in his cell in
stressful positions ("High cuffed"), left with a bag
over his head for
extended periods, and denied bedding or blankets.
DETAINEE-07 described
being made to "bark like a dog, being forced to
crawl on his stomach
while MPs spit and urinated on him, and being struck
causing
unconsciousness."

    The overthrow of law by legal-sounding phrases
penned in
secret; the laws of the Republic falling before the
demands of empire;
nullification of any check or balance on the
President; suspension of
fundamental human rights; a tangle of contradictory
bureaucratic memos;
blind imperial ambition leading to catastrophic war;
mayhem and failure
in that war unfolding behind a shimmering screen of
high-sounding
phrases extolling the spread of democracy; panicked
resort to criminal
emergency measures; torture and other outrages
against human dignity
hidden behind a battery of euphemisms ("sleep
adjustment," "setting the
conditions" for interrogation); the pre-organized
rejection of any
accountability, including that imposed by the
articles of the US
criminal code: Are these not the main features we
might expect to see
writ large if a full-scale collapse of the
Constitution of the United
States were to come?

    Safeguarding Democracy

    And that brings us back to the election and our
endorsement
of John Kerry. The most important reason to vote for
John Kerry in
November is to safeguard democracy in America.

    Kerry's election would not necessarily save, and
Bush's
election would not necessarily destroy, democratic
government in the
United States. Even as President, even "in power,"
Kerry might well find
himself "in opposition." In that case, he would need
all the help from
ordinary people he could get, and there's good
reason to believe it
would be forthcoming. The impeachment of Clinton
failed, but it
demonstrated the strength of the assault on
legitimate government that
can be waged not by the presidency but upon the
presidency--and that was
in peacetime. Clinton, after all, began his two
terms in office with all
three branches of government in Democratic hands but
ended with all
three in Republican hands. (His presidency was
perhaps the most
brilliant political retreat in American history, but
it was a retreat.)
Moreover, Kerry has given his right-wing opponents
powerful ammunition.
By pledging to win a war in Iraq that is unwinnable,
he may have put his
foot in a trap that would snap shut once he was in
office, leaving him
open to the charge of failure. What would the party
that impeached
Clinton for sex and lies do to a President who
presided over the "loss"
of Iraq in the midst of the "war on terror"?

    If Bush is elected, the role of popular activism
in support
of the democratic system would be even more
important. Roughly half the
country dissents from Bushism. The antiwar movement,
and now the
campaign itself, have generated widespread and
intense opposition.
Activism has blossomed. New progressive
organizations have been founded
and will outlast the election. Events are also
unlikely to favor the
Administration. Already, its war policy and its
fiscal policies are
widely recognized as disasters. Opposition is bound
to be strong and can
save the Republic. And let us recall that when
President Nixon
threatened the constitutional system thirty years
ago, he was driven
from office in disgrace by popular fury. For all its
importance, the
election is only one episode in a longer popular
struggle, whether Bush
or Kerry is President. Either way, The Nation will
devote itself to the
fight.

    Yet it remains true that of all the things
Americans can now
do to support democracy, the election of John Kerry
is the most
important. A Kerry presidency would seriously
disrupt the concentration
of power at the heart of the present danger. He
might still try to "win"
the Iraq war but would be less likely to wage future
wars. His
appointments to the Supreme Court would stop the
Court's slide into
unchecked, one-sided partisanship. His control of
the bully pulpit would
be a powerful counterforce to the right-wing
propaganda that now all but
drowns out other voices in the news media. His
control of the agencies
of the executive branch would halt, or at least
retard, their merger
with corporate America. More important, the simple
structural fact that
the Democrats are the other party would create a
counterbalance to the
right-wing power that predominates elsewhere in the
system. The
Democrats, including Kerry, have been disappointing
champions of their
namesake, democracy, yet the culture of their party
is still an
improvement over that of the Republicans. The
Democrats are reluctant
imperialists; the Republicans are imperialists by
avocation. The
Democratic Party generally wants to defend civil
liberties and does so
when it dares; the Republicans, with honorable
exceptions, apparently
would sweep them aside. The Democrats prefer social
justice, however
weakly they fight for it; the Republicans would give
every dollar they
can find to the rich. The Democrats are inclined to
limit corporate
power; the Republicans are corporate power.

    What can be lost, slowly or abruptly, as the
crisis unfolds,
is everything that was lost by Detainee 07. What can
be saved--let us
rescue the beautiful word from the cesspool through
which the Bush
Administration has dragged it--is freedom.



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:33:32 -0500
From: Itzak Rabin <maxfury at granderiver.net>
Subject: [Mb-civic] A washingtonpost.com article
from:
	michael at intrafi.com
To: mb-civic at islandlists.com
Message-ID:
<4.3.2.7.0.20041024171012.00d66e90 at mail.granderiver.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii";
format=fowed

Re:  A washingtonpost.com article from:
michael at intrafi.com


===
Sacrificing Israel

  By Charles Krauthammer

     The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy
is to rebuild our
alliances so the world will come to our aid,
especially in Iraq. He repeats
this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy
idea he has to offer.
The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just
how he proposes to do
this.

  To view the entire article, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53015-2004Oct21.html?
referrerêilarticle
  ===


Dear Mr. Krauthammer,

Blow it out your *ss.

Suck it out your *ss.

I don't really care what you do, but it's obviously
up your *ss and eating
you away internally.

It remains people like you, and your twisted
relayings to The World of your
own Ultimate Undeniable Absolute Truths, that
continues to prevent an
actual Peace between Palestine and Israel.

(We'll temporarily leave people like Sharon and
Arafat out of it, and
excluding their respective own, let's just talk
*Propaganda* for a second...)

You wouldn't be satisfied if even MOSES HIMSELF
ascended to The Presidency
of The United States Of America and spoke the world
"Peace".

You would be on Moses' butt on day one, accusing him
of "SACRIFICING ISRAEL".

You putrid swine.

While you are still sitting here somehow able to
pull down a job at The
Washington Post as an actual Columnist whining your
endless propaganda that
"Israel Is Being Betrayed, And Will Continue To Be
Betrayed, No Matter Who
Is In Charge", the rest of The World is still
reeling from the revelations
that Dov Weisglass, Sharon's former Top Aide and
Adviser and Lawyer and
Friend and Etc has put forth to the global media
that *The Entire Peace
Process* was just a scam coverup in order to
permanently eliminate any
future possibility of a Palestinian State in Reality
and in order to be
able to keep The West Bank under Israel's control.

How much does The Washington Post pay assholes like
you to put out
propaganda for Israel...?

Do you get any kickbacks from Israel itself...?

One can only hope so.

Well, regardless, either way, you obviously have
something up your *ss, and
it's eating you away each day in more ways than one.

That you can sit there while the Bush administration
and the Israeli
Government sacrifice an actual Peace and scam the
entire world and are
quite satisfied to =Sacrifice America's Best
Interestsuseless thing called Peace, and actually make money
while typing their
propaganda, shows where you draw your character from
(at least part of it,
kid).

 From the inside of someone else's *ss that also has
something up there
eating them away like there is no tomorrow.

My best advice to all of you, other than suggest
that you cease continuing
to pummel the American Media conduits with Israeli
Propaganda, is to see a
doctor and get rid of it.

The "Israeli Hezbollah".  What a great term for it.

The same people that shot Itzak Rabin in the head
because he was just too
damned close to *actually* bringing a literal Peace
about over there, which
would have benefited =AL OF US=.

Except, of course, The Israeli Government, who would
have had to sacrifice
REAL ESTATE for PEACE, which is unconscionable in
the higher echelons of
Tyranny.

Real Estate, among so many other things, remains far
more important than
useless things like Peace and Human Lives.

Again, it has become clear, that if even Moses
himself became interested in
Peace In The Middle East, that one faction or
another would wait until he
went to sleep and slit his throat in the night like
a rabid dog.

All in all, Mr. Krauthammer, it's good to see you
*Serving America's Best
Interests* by peddling *Israeli Propaganda* and
getting paid for it to boot.

Keep up the good work.

You're in great company.

If I see Moses, I'll tell him you're looking for
him.



.



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:38:52 -0400
From: "Harold Sifton" <harry.sifton at sympatico.ca>
Subject: [Mb-civic] Washington Post backs Kerry
To: "MB Civic" <MB-civic at islandlists.com>
Message-ID: <000801c4ba1a$3fcc5bd0$1627e440 at Harold>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

This is a good thing, the influential Washington
Post backs Kerry !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3948645.stm

Hope

Harry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-
civic/attachments/20041024/a4e2fc56/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:18:20 -0500
From: Cheeseburger <maxfury at granderiver.net>
Subject: [Mb-civic] What's Going Right in Iraq
LATimes
To: mb-civic at islandlists.com
Message-ID:
<4.3.2.7.0.20041024180258.00d64640 at mail.granderiver.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii";
format=fowed

Re:  What's Going Right in Iraq LATimes



Amazing spin.  Thanks for the laughs, American
Columnists.  I *really*
needed that.   LOL...........


In the face of 7,000 dead and wounded American
Soldiers, 10,000 to 40,000
dead Iraqi civilian men women and children, Billions
of American Taxpayer
Dollars being funneled off into who knows where with
no receipts for
anything any longer in existence, a puppet
government set up there, 140,000
American Troops still there, our Government's
promise that 14 military
bases will be constructed there and "we will be
there forever", the immense
delay of reconstructing what we ourselves blew up,
and among the zillion
other "What's Gone And Going Wrong In Iraq" items
that could easily be
mentioned, the fact that we're in the wrong war at
the wrong time in the
wrong place to begin with while some guy named
bin-Laden is laughing his
ass off at the entire show and that we've managed to
actually become a
recruitment promoter for "al-Qaeda" by our own
actions thus far in The
Middle East, to know that boutiques and tobacco
stores in Iraq are now
flourishing again is an enormous relief to me, and
I'm sure, all Americans.

Again, thanks for the laughs, American Columnists,
keep up the good work.

You've managed to bring a ray of sunshine to an
incredible atrocity that
shines brightly through the 10's of Thousands of
dead bodies piled up next
to the boutique.

"Oh, wow, look, now *that* is a cool shirt....
Let's go in and see how
many dinars it cost."

"I don't know..."

"Oh, come on, just step over the dead bodies...
Look, it looks real clean
inside..."

"Allright, but just for a minute..."

"See, I told you, we have been Set Free, things are
getting better..."

"Wow, that *is* a cool dress....."

"Heh, yep, I'll buy it for you, you can wear it to
your son's funeral
tonight..."

"Gee, thanks, Mr. Cheney, that's really kind of
you..."

"Don't mention it...  Just remember, America is your
friend, things are
getting better here, and tell all your neighbors who
bought you the dress
to wear to the funeral..."

"I will...."


Yes, I'm sure they will.

Freedom is such an awesome thing.

If you can manage to sweep away all the
inconsequential dead bodies quickly
enough, everything looks brand new and shiny all of
a sudden.

Dead bodies are easily forgotten in the sunshine of
a brand new day in the
bright Iraqi Future while strolling down the avenue
in a new dress on the
way to your baby's funeral.

Thank you, America, you have finally brought us real
hope.





Cheeseburger

- Where has the sparrow gone now that I need its
song.



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:14:42 -0400
From: barbarasiomos38 at webtv.net (Barbara Siomos)
Subject: [Mb-civic] Broadway on PBS
To: mb-hair at islandlists.com,
mb-civic at islandlists.com
Message-ID:
<24361-417C3762-1254 at storefull-3214.bay.webtv.net>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII

Amy I finally caught a glimpse of "HAiR" on PBS. I
was in the kitchen
and missed a minute or so BUT the first group I saw
was, Larry Marshall,
Robin Mc Namara and Allan Nichols (I Think it was
Allan since I missed
part of it and only had a fast peek). I think they
were doing the number
"Colored Spade". Comments on the tune anyone, they
did not have any
sound in that shot. Also saw Jerry Ragni and Galt,
couldn't find Jim ??
Unless I did not recognize him.

Then Ben Vereen spoke a bit, saw Heather McRae
singing :-)) and pictures
of our own Bill Swiggard.... Was that you Bill?
within a few pictures
yours was at the top.

It was awesome.... hope I catch it again so I can
have a better, longer
and more accurate viewing.

peace,
barbara



------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:24:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Butler <michael at intrafi.com>
Subject: [Mb-civic] Please sign this important
petition
To: mb-civic at islandlists.com
Message-ID:
<5783955.1098660288703.JavaMail.SYSTEM at ksm4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-
civic/attachments/20041024/9a6281ab/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:33:04 -0700
From: Michael Butler <michael at michaelbutler.com>
Subject: [Mb-civic] FW: NPR and National Endowment
For The Arts
To: Civic <mb-civic at islandlists.com>, HAIR List
	<mb-hair at islandlists.com>
Message-ID:
<BDA189C0.1A88D%michael at michaelbutler.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"


------ Forwarded Message
From: "hayden wayne" <haydenwayne at hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:33:08 +0000
To: michael at michaelbutler.com
Subject: RE: NPR and National Endowement For The
Arts

On NPR's Morning Edition last week, Nina Tottenberg
said that if the
Supreme Court supports Congress, it is in effect the
end of the National
Public Radio (NPR), National Endowment for the Arts
(NEA) & the Public
Broadcasting System (PBS). PBS, NPR and the arts are
facing major
cutbacks in funding.

In spite of the efforts of each station to reduce
spending costs and
streamline their services, some government officials
believe that the
funding currently going to these programs is too
large a portion for
something which is seen as not worthwhile. The only
way that our
representatives can be aware of the base of support
for PBS and these
types of programs is by making our voices heard.
Please add your name to
this list and forward it to friends who believe in
what this stands for.
This is for anyone who thinks these programs are a
worthwhile
expenditure of $1.12/year of their taxes. The list
will be forwarded to
the President and the Vice President of the United
States.

HOW TO SIGN & FORWARD: IT'S EASY:

This petition is being passed around the Internet.
Please keep it
rolling. Do not reply to me. Sign and forward to
others to sign. DON'T
WORRY ABOUT DUPLICATES. This is being forwarded to
many people at once.
It won't matter if many people receive the same list
as the names are
being managed. If you sign, please forward on to
others.

If you prefer not to sign, please don't kill it.
Send it to one of these two
e-mail
addresses: wein2688 at blue.univnorthco.edu <
<mailto:wein2688 at blue.univnorthco.edu>
mailto:wein2688 at blue.univnorthco.edu> or
kubi7975 at blue.univnorthco.edu <
<mailto:kubi7975 at blue.univnorthco.edu>
mailto:kubi7975 at blue.univnorthco.edu> .

If you happen to be the 150th,
200th, 250th, etc., signer of this petition, please
forward a copy to:
wein2688 at blue.univnorthco.edu. This way we can keep
track of the lists and
organize them. Thank you!

NOTE: It is preferable that you SELECT (highlight)
the entirety of this
letter and then COPY it into a new outgoing message,
rather than simply
forwarding it. In your new outgoing message, add
your name to the bottom
of the list, then send it on.

1210) Kathy Edwards, Eau Claire, WI 54701

1211) Alice W. Katz, Eau Claire, WI 54701

1212) David J. Katz, Eau Claire, WI 54701

1213) Kaye D.Senn, Eau Claire, WI 54703

1214) Steven R. Senn, Eau Claire, WI 54703

1215) James W. Fering, Eau Claire, WI 54703

1216) Lynn A. Fering, Eau Claire, WI 54703

1217) Ann L. Sowaske, Madison, WI 53705

1218) Ben I. Sowaske, Madison, Wi 53705

1219) Ann A. Harsh, Sturgeon Bay, WI 53545

1220) David V. Harsh, Sturgeon Bay, WI 53545

1221) Nancy Becknell, Madison, WI 53711

1222) Gamber Tegtmeyer,Waunakee, WI 53597

1223) John D. Tegtmeyer, Granville, OH 43023

1224) A. Jan Berlin, S. Freeport, ME 04078

1225) Beth Marshall, Portland, ME 04102

1226) Barbara Barrall, South Portland, ME 04106

1227) Edward Barrall, San Jose, CA 95123

1228) Ann D Burrell, Palo Alto, CA 94306

1229) Graciela Spivak, Palo Alto, CA 94306

1230) Karen H. C. Lawrence, Palo Alto, CA 94301

1231) Stepheny McGraw, Palo Alto, CA 94303

1232) Kirsti Gamage, Harvard, MA 01451

1233) Carol Panek-Clark, Harvard, MA 01451

1234) Mike Williams, Coupeville, WA 98239

1235) Al Lunemann, Coupeville, Wa. 98239

1236) Margaret Skidmore, Fallbrook, CA 92028

1237) Maeve Heald, Fallbrook, CA 92028

1238) Pamela Williams, Fairfax, CA 94978

1239) Barbara Brothman, Denver CO  80230

1240) Rebecca Kirchdorfer, Denver CO 80220

1241)  Paula Friedland, Denver, CO  80247

1242) Jeanne Salidar, New York, NY 11210

1243) Petr Salidar, New York, NY 11210

1244) Mark J. Petracca, NYC, 10024

1245) Hayden Wayne, NYC 10024

1246) Michael Butler, LA 90069



------ End of Forwarded Message



------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:35:14 -0400
From: Golsorkhi <grgolsorkhi at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Mb-civic] FW: Lebanonwire.com A Bush
pre-election strike on
	Iran	'imminent'
To: <michael at michaelbutler.com>
Message-ID: <200410250001.i9P01W9f026360 at dune>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Skipped content of type
multipart/alternative-------------- next part
--------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 165 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-
civic/attachments/20041024/274b97ef/attachment-0001.obj

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:10:30 -0400
From: Golsorkhi <grgolsorkhi at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Mb-civic] FW: Why Iran Wants Four More
Years
To: <michael at michaelbutler.com>
Message-ID: <200410250021.i9P0Ltv0026402 at dune>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"


------ Forwarded Message
From: Kambiz Atabai <simorgh at covad.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:30:45 -0400
To: "Kamran Atabai Sr."
<kamran.atabai at graniteloan.com>
Cc: Shahla Samii <shahla at thesamiis.com>, Reza
Golesorkhi
<grgolsorkhi at earthlink.net>
Subject: Fwd: Why Iran Wants Four More Years

No comments, interesting!

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Subject: Why Iran Wants Four More Years
>
> Why Iran Wants Four More Years
>
> by David Jagernauth
>
>  
>
> The president got an unusual endorsement Tuesday;
Hasan Rowhani, the
> head of Iran's security council, told local media
that Tehran's best
> interest is served by the re-election of George W.
Bush. Does it seem
> strange that a member of the "axis of evil" would
support our current
> administration? Not if you understand the
circumstances surrounding
> our attack on Iraq.
>
>  When future historians write about this war, I
suspect they will sum
> it up like this: In the year 2003,
neoconservatives within the Bush
> Administration were duped by an Iranian double
agent into attacking
> Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein in order to pave
the way for a
> pro-Iran, Shia-controlled Iraq. It was one of the
greatest acts of
> espionage ever perpetrated against the superpower.
>
>  Who is this Iranian double agent? His name is
Ahmed Chalabi, the
> founder of the anti-Saddam Iraqi National Congress
(INC). The CIA now
> knows that the INC was either a front for, or had
deep links to,
> Iranian intelligence and that Chalabi was passing
U.S. secrets to
> Tehran. How was Chalabi getting ahold of our
secrets? The neocons in
> the Bush Administration were giving our secrets to
him!
>
>  Who were these neocons? Donald Rumsfeld, Paul
Wolfowitz, Richard
> Perle and Dick Cheney, to name a few. Their plans
for the invasion of
> Iraq did not begin after the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks or even when
> they took office in 2001. It began in 1997 when
they founded the
> nonprofit organization Project for the New
American Century.
>
>  The neocons laid out their vision for "American
global leadership"
> (i.e. world domination) in their Statement of
Principles on June 3,
> 1997. They wrote: "It is important to shape
circumstances before
> crises emerge" (i.e. military preemption); to
"promote freedom abroad"
> (i.e. occupy totalitarian regimes); and to
institute the "Reaganite
> policy of military strength and moral clarity"
(i.e. kill Muslims).
>
>  In January 1998, members of the Project wrote to
President Clinton,
> urging him to "remove Saddam Hussein's regime from
power." They argued
> that he was responsible for a destabilized Middle
East that was
> putting American troops, Israel, moderate Arab
states and oil in
> jeopardy.
>
>  Clinton rejected their argument, choosing a
policy of containment
> over regime change. Containment was effective in
keeping WMDs away
> from Saddam, but sanctions were helping to keep
him in power by
> weakening resistance movements. This angered the
neocons. Once they
> realized that the Project couldn't be achieved
with Clinton in power,
> plans were set in motion to steal the 2000
election.
>
>  Or so I suspect. There is no smoking-gun proof of
this, but if you
> look at that list of Project signatures back in
1997, you will find
> Jeb Bush's name right next to Dick Cheney. Could
it only be a
> coincidence that the voter fraud, which ultimately
won Bush (and more
> importantly Cheney) the White House and ensured
the implementation of
> the Project, occurred in the state headed by Jeb
Bush, a signatory to
> the project? Maybe. But I doubt it.
>
>  Even before the neocons hijacked America, Ahmed
Chalabi was their
> handpicked, pro-U.S. puppet leader primed to
assume power through
> "democratic" elections after Iraq's liberation.
Chalabi was the
> primary, if only, source for the administration's
false claims that
> Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and
connections to al
> Qaeda. He was feeding the administration (and The
New York Times, it
> turns out) the disinformation they wanted to hear.
Bush, the neocons
> and the media took Chalabi's chum like a bunch of
chumps, ignoring our
> own intelligence officers who were suspicious of
Chalabi and his
> claims from the very beginning.
>
>  Chalabi's lies became the uncontested truth after
the Sept. 11
> terrorist attacks. The United Kingdom's The
Guardian newspaper reports
> that an Iranian spy (not Chalabi) warned the
United States of the
> impending attacks but was not believed. If true,
that means Iran knew
> about the attacks and, perhaps, even helped to
plan and/or finance
> them. The 9-11 Commission confirmed that Iran has
had connections to
> al Qaeda since 1991.
>
>  Iran might have foreseen that the attacks would
provide a catalyst
> for the invasion of Iraq. And now Iran has exactly
what they wanted:
> Saddam is gone and Iraq is up for grabs. If you
are afraid Bush will
> send us to war against Iran, I've got news for
you: We already are.
> The majority Shia population of Iraq is attacking
our troops everyday.
> They are being supported by Iran -- which is 90
percent Shia --
> because Tehran wants an ally in the Middle East to
help them spread
> their version of fundamentalist Islam and increase
international
> terrorism.
>
>  To summarize: Bush's foreign policy decisions
were actually being
> controlled by Iran through Chalabi. Bush allowed
an Iranian spy to
> access high-level U.S. secrets that more than
likely ended up in the
> possession of al Qaeda terrorists. Hundreds of our
troops died doing
> Iran's dirty work, and now they are killing more
Americans everyday
> without consequence in a power struggle over Iraq.
>
>  Is there any wonder why Iran supports the
re-election of George W.
> Bush?
>
>  David Jagernauth is editorial editor of the
Oregon Daily Emerald. He
> can be reached at
davidjagernauth at dailyemerald.com.
>  
> Published on Saturday, October 23, 2004 by
CommonDreams.org


------ End of Forwarded Message



------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:29:03 -0700
From: Michael Butler <michael at michaelbutler.com>
Subject: [Mb-civic] A VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE
To: Family Finance
<michael at michaelbutler.com>,	Civic
	<mb-civic at islandlists.com>, HAIR List
<mb-hair at islandlists.com>
Message-ID:
<BDA196DF.1A895%michael at michaelbutler.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-
gabler24oct24,1,4115271
.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

POLITICS

Karl Rove: America's Mullah

This election is about Rovism, and the outcome
threatens to transform the
U.S. into an ironfisted theocracy.
 By Neal Gabler
 Neal Gabler, a senior fellow at the Norman Lear
Center at USC Annenberg, is
author of "Life the Movie: How Entertainment
Conquered Reality."

 October 24, 2004

 Even now, after Sen. John F. Kerry handily won his
three debates with
President Bush and after most polls show a dead
heat, his supporters seem
downbeat. Why? They believe that Karl Rove, Bush's
top political operative,
cannot be beaten. Rove the Impaler will do whatever
it takes ‹ anything ‹ to
make certain that Bush wins. This isn't just typical
Democratic pessimism.
It has been the master narrative of the 2004
presidential campaign in the
mainstream media. Attacks on Kerry come and go ‹
flip-flopper, Swift boats,
Massachusetts liberal ‹ but one constant remains,
Rove, and everyone takes
it for granted that he knows how to game the system.

 Rove, however, is more than a political sharpie
with a bulging bag of dirty
tricks. His campaign shenanigans ‹ past and future ‹
go to the heart of what
this election is about.

 Democrats will tell you it is a referendum on
Bush's incompetence or on his
extremist right-wing agenda. Republicans will tell
you it's about
conservatism versus liberalism or who can better
protect us from terrorists.
They are both wrong. This election is about Rovism ‹
the insinuation of
Rove's electoral tactics into the conduct of the
presidency and the fabric
of the government. It's not an overstatement to say
that on Nov. 2, the fate
of traditional American democracy will hang in the
balance.

 Rovism is not simply a function of Rove the
political conniver sitting in
the counsels of power and making decisions, though
he does. No recent
presidency has put policy in the service of politics
as has Bush's. Because
tactics can change institutions, Rovism is much
more. It is a philosophy and
practice of governing that pervades the
administration and even extends to
the Republican-controlled Congress. As Robert
Berdahl, chancellor of UC
Berkeley, has said of Bush's foreign policy, a
subset of Rovism, it
constitutes a fundamental change in "the fabric of
constitutional government
as we have known it in this country."

 Rovism begins, as one might suspect from the most
merciless of political
consiglieres, with Machiavelli's rule of force: "A
prince is respected when
he is either a true friend or a downright enemy." No
administration since
Warren Harding's has rewarded its friends so
lavishly, and none has been as
willing to bully anyone who strays from its message.

 There is no dissent in the Rove White House without
reprisal.

 Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki was
retired after he disagreed
with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's
transformation of the Army and
then testified that invading Iraq would require a
U.S. deployment of 200,000
soldiers.

 Chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster was
threatened with termination if he
revealed before the vote that the administration had
seriously
misrepresented the cost of its proposed prescription
drug plan to get it
through Congress.

 Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was peremptorily
fired for questioning the
wisdom of the administration's tax cuts, and former
U.S. administrator L.
Paul Bremer III felt compelled to recant his
statement that there were
insufficient troops in Iraq.

 Even accounting for the strong-arm tactics of
Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard
Nixon, this isn't government as we have known it.
This is the Sopranos in
the White House: "Cross us and you're road kill."

 Naturally, the administration's treatment of the
opposition is worse.
Rove's mentor, political advisor Lee Atwater, has
been quoted as saying:
"What you do is rip the bark off liberals." That's
how Bush has governed.
There is a feeling, perhaps best expressed by
Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell
Miller's keynote address at the Republican
convention, that anyone who has
the temerity to question the president is
undermining the country. At times,
Miller came close to calling Democrats traitors for
putting up a
presidential candidate.

 This may be standard campaign rhetoric. But it's
one thing to excoriate
your opponents in a campaign, and quite another to
continue berating them
after the votes are counted.

 Rovism regards any form of compromise as weakness.
Politics isn't a bus we
all board together, it's a steamroller.

 No recent administration has made less effort to
reach across the aisle,
and thanks to Rovism, the Republican majority in
Congress often operates on
a rule of exclusion. Republicans blocked Democrats
from participating in the
bill-drafting sessions on energy, prescription drugs
and intelligence reform
in the House. As Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez)
told the New Yorker, "They
don't consult with the nations of the world, and
they don't consult with
Congress, especially the Democrats in Congress. They
can do it all
themselves."

 Bush entered office promising to be a "uniter, not
a divider." But Rovism
is not about uniting. What Rove quickly grasped is
that it's easier and more
efficacious to exploit the cultural and social
divide than to look for
common ground. No recent administration has as
eagerly played wedge issues ‹
gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research,
faith-based initiatives ‹ to
keep the nation roiling, in the pure Rovian belief
that the president's
conservative supporters will always be angrier and
more energized than his
opponents. Division, then, is not a side effect of
policy; in Rovism, it is
the purpose of policy.

 The lack of political compromise has its correlate
in the administration's
stubborn insistence that it doesn't have to
compromise with facts. All
politicians operate within an Orwellian nimbus where
words don't mean what
they normally mean, but Rovism posits that there is
no objective, verifiable
reality at all. Reality is what you say it is, which
explains why Bush can
claim that postwar Iraq is going swimmingly or that
a so-so economy is
soaring. As one administration official told
reporter Ron Suskind, "We're an
empire now, and when we act, we create our own
realityŠ. We're history's
actors."

 When neither dissent nor facts are recognized as
constraining forces, one
is infallible, which is the sum and foundation of
Rovism. Cleverly invoking
the power of faith to protect itself from
accusations of stubbornness and
insularity, this administration entertains no doubt,
no adjustment, no
negotiation, no competing point of view. As such, it
eschews the essence of
the American political system: flexibility and
compromise.

 In Rovism, toughness is the only virtue. The mere
appearance of change is
intolerable, which is why Bush apparently can't
admit ever making a mistake.
As Machiavelli put it, the prince must show that
"his judgments are
irrevocable."

 Rovism is certainly not without its appeal. As
political theorist Sheldon
Wolin once characterized Machiavellian government,
it promises the "economy
of politics." Americans love toughness. They love
swagger. In a world of
complexity and uncertainty, especially after Sept.
11, they love the idea of
a man who doesn't need anyone else. They even love
the sense of mission,
regardless of its wisdom.

 These values run deep in the American soul, and
Rovism consciously taps
them. But they are not democratic. Unwavering
discipline, demonization of
foes, disdain for reality and a personal sense of
infallibility based on
faith are the stuff of a theocracy ‹ the president
as pope or mullah and
policy as religious warfare.

 Boiled down, Rovism is government by jihadis in the
grip of unshakable
self-righteousness ‹ ironically the force the
administration says it is
fighting. It imposes rather than proposes.

 Rovism surreptitiously and profoundly changes our
form of government, a
government that has been, since its founding by
children of the
Enlightenment, open, accommodating, moderate and
generally reasonable.

 All administrations try to work the system to their
advantage, and some,
like Nixon's, attempt to circumvent the system
altogether. Rove and Bush
neither use nor circumvent, which would require
keeping the system intact.
They instead are reconfiguring the system in
extra-constitutional,
theocratic terms.

 The idea of the United States as an ironfisted
theocracy is terrifying, and
it should give everyone pause. This time, it's not
about policy. This time,
for the first time, it's about the nature of
American government.

 We all have reason to be very, very afraid.


If you want other stories on this topic, search the
Archives at
latimes.com/archives.

Article licensing and reprint options




 Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times




------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:30:06 -0700
From: ean at sbcglobal.net
Subject: [Mb-civic] Urgent: October Surprise? US to
attack Iran?? Just
	a	rumor?
To: ean at sbcglobal.net
Message-ID: <200410250029.i9P0T4N1026433 at dune>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

The following is so outrageous and,  yet, not
entirely surprising....that I think it
constitutes an emergency that is best dealt with by
foreknowledge.  so forward this to
everyone you know.  Hopefully it won't happen, and
perhaps widespread "leaking" of
this terribly dangerous and vicious action can
somehow immunize us against it
happening.  I have left in the brief introductory
comments by Ed Pearl who sent this
to me......Mha Atma

-------

Hi.  It's better that we know these things and fit
them into a passion to
eliminate these scum from power.  That is, the worst
government of our
lives; possibly of U.S. history.  At the least,
we're increasingly aware
of the danger and its vulnerability, in the short or
long range.  There is
no triumph. -Ed

Forwarded by my friend Anne.  Let's hope it is not
true.  John E. Douglas

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7113.htm


A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent'
White House insider report "October Surprise"
imminent

By Wayne Madsen

10/20/04 "Lebanon Wire" -- According to White House
and Washington Beltway
insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it
could lose the
presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has
initiated plans to
launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic
leadership, its nuclear
reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key
nuclear targets throughout
the country, including the main underground research
site at Natanz in
central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the
planned U.S. attack
reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and
Isfahan known by the U.S.
to headquarter Iran's top mullahs.

The Iran attack plan was reportedly drawn up after
internal polling
indicated that if the Bush
administration launched a so-called anti-terrorist
attack on Iran some two
weeks before the election, Bush would be assured of
a landslide win
against Kerry. Reports of a pre-emptive strike on
Iran come amid concerns
by a number of political observers that the Bush
administration would
concoct an "October Surprise" to influence the
outcome of the presidential
election.

According to White House sources, the USS John F.
Kennedy was deployed to
the Arabian Sea to coordinate the attack on Iran.
Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld discussed the Kennedy's role in the planned
attack on Iran when
he visited the ship in the Arabian Sea on October 9.
Rumsfeld and defense
ministers of U.S. coalition partners, including
those of Albania,
Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Georgia,
Hungary, Iraq, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia,
Mongolia, Poland, Qatar,
Romania, and Ukraine briefly discussed a very "top
level" view of
potential dual-track military operations in Iran and
Iraq in a special
"war room" set up on board the aircraft carrier.
America's primary ally in
Iraq, the United Kingdom, did not attend the
planning session because it
reportedly disagrees with a military strike on Iran.
London also suspects
the U.S. wants to move British troops from Basra in
southern Iraq to the
Baghdad area to help put down an expected surge in
Sh'ia violence in Sadr
City and other Sh'ia areas in central Iraq when the
U.S. attacks Iran as
well as clear the way for a U.S. military strike
across the Iraqi-Iranian
border aimed at securing the huge Iranian oil
installations in Abadan.
U.S. allies South Korea, Australia, Kuwait, Jordan,
Italy, Netherlands,
and Japan were also left out of the USS John F.
Kennedy planning
discussions because of their reported opposition to
any strike on Iran.

In addition, Israel has been supplied by the United
States with 500
"bunker buster" bombs. According to White House
sources, the Israeli Air
Force will attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr
with the U.S. bunker
busters.The joint U.S.-Israeli pre-emptive military
move against Iran
reportedly was crafted by the same neo-conservative
grouping in the
Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office
that engineered the
invasion of Iraq.

Morale aboard the USS John F. Kennedy is at an
all-time low, something
that must be attributable to the knowledge that the
ship will be involved
in an extension of U.S. military actions in the
Persian Gulf region. The
Commanding Officer of an F-14 Tomcat squadron was
relieved of command for
a reported shore leave "indiscretion" in Dubai and
two months ago the
Kennedy's commanding officer was relieved for cause.

The White House leak about the planned attack on
Iran was hastened by
concerns that Russian technicians present at Bushehr
could be killed in an
attack, thus resulting in a wider nuclear
confrontation between Washington
and Moscow. International Atomic Energy Agency
representatives are also
present at the Bushehr facility. In addition, an
immediate Iranian Shahab
ballistic missile attack against Israel would also
further destabilize the
Middle East. The White House leaks about the
pre-emptive strike may have
been prompted by warnings from the CIA and the
Defense Intelligence Agency
that an attack on Iran will escalate out of control.
Intelligence circles
report that both intelligence agencies are in open
revolt against the Bush
White House.

White House sources also claimed they are
"terrified" that Bush wants to
start a dangerous war with Iran prior to the
election and fear that such a
move will trigger dire consequences for the entire
world.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative
journalist and
columnist. He served in the National Security
Council (NSA) during the Reagan
Administration and wrote the introduction to
Forbidden Truth. He is the co-author,
with john Stanton of "America's Nightmare: The
Presidency of George Bush II." His
forthcoming book is titled: "jaded Tasks: Big Oil,
Black Ops, and Brass
Plates." Madsen can be reached at Wmadsen777 at aol.com

Copyright©1999-2004 Lebanonwire®.com
http://www.lebanonwire.com/0410/04102002LW.asp


***



--
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network
email list, option D
(up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch
options (option A -
1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day,
option D - up to 3x/day)
please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded
you this email and you
want to be on our list, send an email to
ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which
option you'd like.



Action is the antidote to despair.  ----Joan Baez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-
civic/attachments/20041024/6a36b937/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:49:22 -0700
From: ean at sbcglobal.net
Subject: [Mb-civic] What Bush supporters think!
To: ean at sbcglobal.net
Message-ID: <200410250029.i9P0TrmF026443 at dune>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Published on Friday, October 22, 2004 by
OneWorld.net
Three of Four Bush Supporters Still Believe in Iraqi
WMD, al Qaeda Ties
by Jim Lobe

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1022-01.htm
WASHINGTON – Three out of four self-described
supporters of President
George W. Bush still believe that pre-war Iraq had
weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) or active programs to produce them
and that Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein provided “substantial
support” to al Qaeda,
according to a new survey released here Thursday.

Moreover, as many or more Bush supporters hold those
beliefs today than
they did several months ago, before the publication
of a series of well-
publicized official government reports that debunked
both notions.

Those are among the most striking findings of the
survey, which was
conducted in mid-October by the University of
Maryland’s Program on
International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Knowledge
Networks, a California-
based polling firm.



Remarkably, asked whether the U.S. should have gone
to war with Iraq if
U.S. intelligence had concluded that Baghdad did not
have a WMD program
and was not providing support to al Qaeda, 58
percent of Bush supporters
said no, and 61 percent said they assumed that Bush
would also not have
gone to war under those circumstances.


The survey, which polled the views of nearly 900
randomly chosen
respondents equally divided between Bush supporters
and those intending to
vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, found a yawning
gap in the world
views, particularly as regards pre-war Iraq, between
the two groups.

“It is normal during elections for supporters of
presidential candidates to have
fundamental disagreements about values or
strategies,” according to an
analysis produced by PIPA. “The current election is
unique in that Bush
supporters and Kerry supporters have profoundly
different perceptions of
reality. In the face of a stream of high-level
assessments about pre-war Iraq,
Bush supporters cling to the refuted beliefs that
Iraq had WMD or supported
al Qaeda.”

Indeed, the only issue on which the survey found
broad agreement between
the two sets of voters was on the question of
whether the Bush
administration itself has been actively propagating
the misconceptions about
Iraq’s WMD and connections to al Qaeda.

“One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these
(erroneous) beliefs is
that they perceive the Bush administration
confirming them,” noted Steven
Kull, PIPA’s director. “Interestingly, this is one
point on which Bush and Kerry
supporters agree.”

The survey also found a major gap between Bush’s
stated positions on a
number of international issues and what his
supporters believe Bush’s
position to be. A strong majority of Bush supporters
believe, for example that
the president supports a range of international
treaties and institutions which
is actually on record as opposing.

On pre-war Iraq, the survey asked each respondent
questions about WMD
and links to al Qaeda on three levels: 1) what the
respondents themselves
believed about the two issues; (2) what they
believed that “most experts” had
concluded about them; and 3) what they believed the
Bush administration
was saying about them.

The survey found that 72 percent of Bush supporters
believe either that Iraq
had actual WMD (47 percent) or a major program for
producing them (25
percent), despite the widespread media coverage in
early October of the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA’s) “Duelfer
Report,” the final word on the
subject by the one billion dollar, 15-month
investigation by the Iraq Survey
Group.

It found that that Hussein had dismantled all of his
WMD programs shortly
after the 1991 Gulf War and had never tried to
reconstitute them.

Nonetheless, 56 percent of Bush supporters said they
believed that most
experts currently believe that Iraq had actual WMD,
and 57 percent said they
thought that the Duelfer Report had itself concluded
that Iraq either had
WMD (19 percent) or a major WMD program (38
percent).

Only 26 percent of Kerry supporters, by contrast,
said they believed that pre-
war Iraq had either actual WMD or a WMD program, and
only 18 percent
said they believed that “most experts” agreed.

Similar results were found with respect to Hussein’s
alleged support for al
Qaeda, a theory that has been most persistently
asserted by Vice president
Dick Cheney, but that was thoroughly debunked by the
final report of the
bipartisan 9/11 Commission earlier this summer.

Seventy-five percent of Bush supporters said they
believed that Iraq was
providing “substantial” support to Al Qaeda, with 20
percent asserting that
Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks on
New York and the Pentagon.
Sixty-three percent of Bush supporters even believed
that the clear evidence
of such support has actually been found, and 60
percent believe that “most
experts” have reached the same conclusion.

By contrast, only 30 percent of Kerry supporters
said they believe that such a
link existed and that most experts agree.

But large majorities of both Bush and Kerry
supporters agree that the
administration is saying that Iraq had WMD and was
providing substantial
support to al Qaeda. In regard to WMD, those
majorities have actually grown
since last summer, according to PIPA.

On WMD, 82 percent of Bush supporters and 84 percent
of Kerry supporters
believed that the administration is saying that Iraq
either had WMD or major
WMD programs. On ties with al Qaeda, 75 percent of
Bush supporters and
74 percent of Kerry supporters believe that the
administration is saying that
Iraq provided substantial support to the terrorist
group.

Remarkably, asked whether the U.S. should have gone
to war with Iraq if
U.S. intelligence had concluded that Baghdad did not
have a WMD program
and was not providing support to al Qaeda, 58
percent of Bush supporters
said no, and 61 percent said they assumed that Bush
would also not have
gone to war under those circumstances.

“To support the president and to accept that he took
the U.S. to war based on
mistaken assumptions,” said Kull, “likely creates
substantial cognitive
dissonance and leads Bush supporters to suppress
awareness of unsettling
information about pre-war Iraq.”

Kull added that this “cognitive dissonance” could
also help explain other
remarkable findings in the survey, particularly with
respect to Bush
supporters’ misperceptions about the president’s own
positions.

In particular, majorities or Bush supporters
incorrectly assumed that he
supports multilateral approaches to various
international issues, including the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) (69
percent), the land mine
treaty (72 percent), and the Kyoto Protocol to curb
greenhouse gas
emissions that contribute to global warming (51
percent).

In August, two thirds of Bush supporters also said
they believed that Bush
supported the International Criminal Court (ICC),
although in the latest poll,
that figure dropped to a 53 percent majority, even
though Bush explicitly
denounced the ICC in the most widely watched
nationally televised debate of
the campaign in late September.

In all of these cases, majorities of Bush supporters
said they favored the
positions that they imputed, incorrectly, to Bush.

Large majorities of Kerry supporters, on the other
hand, showed they knew
both their candidate’s and Bush’s positions on the
same issues.

Bush supporters were also found to hold
misperceptions regarding
international support for the president and his
policies.

Despite a steady flow over the past year of official
statements by foreign
governments and public-opinion polls showing strong
opposition to the Iraq
war, less than one third of Bush supporters believed
that most people in
foreign countries opposed the U.S. having gone to
war.

Two thirds said they believed that foreign views
were either evenly divided on
the war (42 percent) or that the majority of
foreigners actually favored the war
(26 percent).

Three of every four Kerry supporters, on the other
hand, said it was their
understanding that the most of the rest of the world
opposed the war.

Similarly, polls conducted during the summer in 35
major countries around
the world found that majorities or pluralities in 30
of them favored Kerry for
president over Bush by an average of margin of
greater than two to one.

Yet 57 percent of Bush supporters said they believed
a majority of people
outside the U.S. favored Bush re-election, and 33
percent said foreign
opinion was evenly divided.

Two thirds of Kerry supporters said they though
their candidate was favored
overseas; only one percent said they though most
people abroad preferred
Bush.

Kull, who has been analyzing U.S. public opinion on
foreign-policy issues for
two decades, said misperceptions of Bush supporters
showed, if anything,
that hold that the president has over his loyalists.


“The roots of the Bush supporters’ resistance to
information very likely lie in
the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally into
the near pitch-perfect
leadership that President Bush showed in its
immediate wake,” he said.

“This appears to have created a powerful bond
between Bush and his
supporters – and an idealized image of the President
that makes it difficult for
his supporters to imagine that he could have made
incorrect judgments
before the war, that world public opinion would be
critical of his policies or
that the president could hold foreign-policy
positions that are at odds with his
supporters.”

© Copyright 2004 OneWorld.net

###



--
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network
email list, option D
(up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch
options (option A -
1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day,
option D - up to 3x/day)
please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded
you this email and you
want to be on our list, send an email to
ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which
option you'd like.



Action is the antidote to despair.  ----Joan Baez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-
civic/attachments/20041024/8223b21d/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 02:53:09 -0500
From: Flipper <maxfury at granderiver.net>
Subject: [Mb-civic] The Bright Side Of Iraq
To: mb-civic at islandlists.com
Message-ID:
<4.3.2.7.0.20041025024747.00d66af0 at mail.granderiver.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii";
format=fowed

The Bright Side Of Iraq

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/24/iraq.main/index.html


Ok, go ahead, I'll take my sunglasses off for a
moment, show me the bright
side of boutiques, generators and tobacco shops.

Dazzling.

Ok, I'm putting my sunglasses back on.  The light is
just too bright.


.



------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:32:32 -0700
From: Michael Butler <michael at michaelbutler.com>
Subject: [Mb-civic] Beyond the Call of Duty
To: Civic <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
Message-ID:
<BDA278B0.1A8C7%michael at michaelbutler.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"


    Go to Original

    Beyond the Call of Duty
    By Adam Zagorin & Timothy J. Burger
    Time Magazine

     Sunday 24 October 2004
 A whistle-blower objected to the government's
Halliburton deals-and says
now she's paying for it.

    In February 2003, less than a month before the
U.S. invaded Iraq,
Bunnatine (Bunny) Greenhouse walked into a Pentagon
meeting and with a quiet
comment started what could be the end of her career.
On the agenda was the
awarding of an up to $7 billion deal to a subsidiary
of Houston-based
conglomerate Halliburton to restore Iraq's oil
facilities. On hand were
senior officials from the office of Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and
aides to retired Lieut. General Jay Garner, who
would soon become the first
U.S. administrator in Iraq.

     Then several representatives from Halliburton
entered. Greenhouse, a
top contracting specialist for the Army Corps of
Engineers, grew
increasingly concerned that they were privy to
internal discussions of the
contract's terms, so she whispered to the presiding
general, insisting that
he ask the Halliburton employees to leave the room.

     Once they had gone, Greenhouse raised other
concerns. She argued that
the five-year term for the contract, which had not
been put out for
competitive bid, was not justified, that it should
be for one year only and
then be opened to competition. But when the
contract-approval document
arrived the next day for Greenhouse's signature, the
term was five years.
With war imminent, she had little choice but to
sign. But she added a
handwritten reservation that extending a no-bid
contract beyond one year
could send a message that "there is not strong
intent for a limited
competition."

     Greenhouse's objections, which had not been
made public until now, will
probably fuel criticism of the government's
allegedly cozy relationship with
Halliburton and could be greeted with calls for
further investigation.
Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR)
subsidiary has been mired in
allegations of overcharging and mismanagement in
Iraq, and the government in
January replaced the noncompetitive oil-field
contract that Greenhouse had
objected to and made two competitively bid awards
instead. (Halliburton won
the larger contract, worth up to $1.2 billion, for
repairing oil
installations in southern Iraq, while Parsons Corp.
got one for the north,
worth up to $800 million.) Halliburton's Iraq
business, which includes
another government contract as well, has been under
particular scrutiny
because Vice President Dick Cheney was once its CEO.
The Pentagon, concerned
about potential controversy when it signed the
original oil-work contract,
gave Cheney's staff a heads-up beforehand. (TIME
disclosed that alert in
June.)

     Greenhouse seems to have got nothing but
trouble for questioning the
deal. Warned to stop interfering and threatened with
a demotion, the career
Corps employee decided to act on her conscience,
according to her lawyer,
Michael Kohn. Kohn, who has represented other
federal whistle-blowers, last
week sent a letter-obtained by TIME from
congressional sources-on her behalf
to the acting Secretary of the Army. In it Kohn
recounts Greenhouse's
Pentagon meeting and demands an investigation of
alleged violations of Army
regulations in the contract's awarding. (The
Pentagon justified the contract
procedures as necessary in a time of war, saying KBR
was the only choice
because of security clearances that it had received
earlier.) Kohn charges
that Greenhouse's superiors have tried to silence
her; he says she has
agreed to be interviewed, pending approval from her
employer, but the Army
failed to make her available despite repeated
requests from TIME.

     "These charges undercut months of assertions by
Administration
officials that the Halliburton contract was on the
level," says Democratic
Representative Henry Waxman. As the Corps's top
contract specialist, the
letter says, Greenhouse had noted reservations on
dozens of procurement
documents over seven years. But it was only after
she took exception to the
Halliburton deal that she was warned not to do so
anymore. The letter states
that the major general who admonished her, Robert
Griffin, later admitted in
a sworn statement that her comments on contracts had
"caused trouble" for
the Army and that, given the controversy surrounding
the contract, it was
"intolerable" and "had to stop." The letter says he
threatened to downgrade
her. (As with Greenhouse, the Army did not make
Griffin available.) When the
Pentagon's auditors accused KBR of overcharging the
government $61 million
for fuel, the letter says, the Army bypassed
Greenhouse. Her deputy waived a
requirement that KBR provide pricing data-a move
that looked "politically
motivated," the letter says.

     The Pentagon maintains that it awarded
Halliburton's Iraq contracts
appropriately, as does a Halliburton spokeswoman. A
senior military official
says the Army "has referred the matter to the
inspector general of the
Department of Defense." As for Halliburton, it has
faced alleged cost
overruns, lost profits and seen at least 54 company
contractors killed in
Iraq. Greenhouse, meanwhile, has requested
protection from retaliation. But
her career-and reputation-are on the line.

  

  -------

   Jump to TO Features for Monday October 25, 2004
  


 © Copyright 2004 by TruthOut.org




------------------------------

Message: 15
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:33:27 -0700
From: Michael Butler <michael at michaelbutler.com>
Subject: [Mb-civic] FW: BREAKING: Massive Cache of
Explosives Missing
	in Iraq
To: Civic <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
Message-ID:
<BDA278E7.1A8C9%michael at michaelbutler.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"


------ Forwarded Message
From: "t r u t h o u t" <messenger at truthout.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:29:51 -0700
To: michael at intrafi.com
Subject: BREAKING: Massive Cache of Explosives
Missing in Iraq

BREAKING: Massive Cache of Explosives Missing in
Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102604Z.shtml







------ End of Forwarded Message



------------------------------

Message: 16
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:52:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: michael at intrafi.com
Subject: [Mb-civic] NYTimes.com Article: Tracking
the Weapons: Huge
	Cache of	Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq
To: mb-civic at islandlists.com
Message-ID:
<20041025165253.4603935040 at web38t.prvt.nytimes.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

The article below from NYTimes.com
has been sent to you by michael at intrafi.com.



/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight
------------\

SIDEWAYS - NOW PLAYING IN SELECT CITIES

An official selection of the New York Film Festival
and the
Toronto International Film Festival, SIDEWAYS is the
new
comedy from Alexander Payne, director of ELECTION
and ABOUT
SCHMIDT.  Starring Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden
Church,
Sandra Oh and Virginia Madsen. Watch the trailer at:

http://www.foxsearchlight.com/sideways/index_nyt.html

\----------------------------------------------------------/


Tracking the Weapons: Huge Cache of Explosives
Vanished From Site in Iraq

October 25, 2004
 By JAMES GLANZ, WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E.
SANGER



The Iraqi interim government has warned that nearly
380 tons
of the world's most powerful conventional explosives
are
missing from a former military installation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html
?ex99723173&einÍ7420c1cce242e2


---------------------------------

Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper.
Imagine
reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you
like!
Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons.
Enjoy
now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:

http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?
mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters

or other creative advertising opportunities with The

New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales at nytimes.com or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
help at nytimes.com.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Mb-civic mailing list
Mb-civic at islandlists.com
http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic

End of Mb-civic Digest, Vol 4, Issue 52
***************************************