j_b

His full testimony is a must watch. Just follow the link in the inital post, go to "Watch highlights ..." on the right and you'll also see "Watch George Galloway's testimony" to the right in the pop-up window. The entire thing is quite long but the highlights do not do it justice, if you can find a way to advance the stream to the ~6th minute (after the charges against him), his opening statement is ~10minutes long and really worthwhile

interesting how nuclear isn't held to the same standard (economically feasible without government intervention) as other alternatives to fossil fuels : " The proposals that Senator McCain is considering would provide a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies, to gain federal certification for three new designs for nuclear plants. On Monday he met with Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman and chief executive of General Electric, which constructs nuclear plants. Such subsidies are still anathema to most environmental groups, which believe that the nuclear industry got far more than its fair share of government aid in the last generation, while their technologies of choice were left hungry. "The notion out there from some of these deep thinkers is that we have to take our medicine and if only we could accept nukes, the global warming problem would be solved," said Anna Aurilio, the legislative director at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "We have a whole bunch of solutions already that are not as risky." These include, Ms. Aurilio said, increasing national energy efficiency and investing in solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy, like ethanol. Thomas B. Cochran, the director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's nuclear program said: "The issue isn't: Do you support nuclear? The issue should be: Do you support massive subsidies to the tune of billions of dollars for nuclear power?" He said, "The answer is no." NYT article can we now put to rest the dishonest argument that wind and solar have to show profitability solely with private investment?

have you thought of writing for the global-warming-is-a-good-thing spin machine? come on, give us an estimate; how much higher (assuming all the ice is gone)? cms, ms, 10's of ms?

it's apparently what many experts say, but is info extraction the real goal? or is instilling fear the main purpose: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050530&s=klein

what a crock of sh*t. arbenz of guatemala was a democratically elected liberal democrat who promoted agrarian reform which didn't please the oligarchy and united fruit co. 40 years and 250,000 dead after the coup, guatemala was until recently still under the grip of the generals and death squads. allende was a twice democratically elected social democrat who nationalized some industry which didn't please the oligarchy and various US corps. 30years and an estimated ~10,000 dead and disappeared after the coup, chile is finally returning to normalcy. do you need any more? if you are going to respond to this, include some facts instead of the usual rant.

rich, a supporter of coup d'etats and secret wars against elected governements throughout latin america attempts to wrap himself in the mantle of democracy. (barf) anyhow, since when in democracies do supreme courts select presidents in spite of the popular vote? moreover, you know as well as i do that this is a republic, with th e president elected by an electoral college (highly irregular for a democracy). certainly not. bush got 51% of the unconfirmed vote (no paper record) according to cnn. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

well, bliar was the "lesser of 3 evils" (prowar conservatives, laissez-faire liberals, and bliar's labor) and he won a very reduced majority (effectively lame-duck). bush has the worst approval ratings at this point in his term since hoover or something ridiculous like that. but what about the rest of the world? spain? italy (regionals)? eastern europe? ukraine? you ought to check on the state of the coalition. we'll see how long you'll be laughing with bush for another 3 years ...

Pre-1990: ‘necessary’ real politics to fight off the evil murderers in iran thus we squarely support saddam (weaponry, intelligence, etc …) Consequences: Several millions dead in the iraq/iran wars. Arming of saddam and consolidation of his dictatorship. 1991-2003: ‘necessary’ real politics to fight off the evil murderers in iraq (sounds familiar? But really, we can’t trust these people, first they are ‘good’, then they are ‘bad’, sheesh, go figure …). Consequences: at least ~500,000 dead due to the embargo. Further consolidation of saddam’s dictatorship. 2003-present: ‘necessary’ real politics to fight off evil murderers and to teach democracy to the good folks of iraq. Consequences: ~100,000 dead since invasion and no end to the bloodbath in sight (no plans for leaving but there are plans for permanent bases). saddam's out. Country infrastructure totally destroyed. Come on, isn’t it obviously clear from the consistency of our policies that the well being of Iraqis is what motivates us? Rest assured, we learned from our mistakes, just as in the 1990s we learned about those that were made in the 1980’s, so what are you worried about? Anyhow, just check out Uzbekistan, see how things have changed …

yeah, so what? DNC democrats are spineless? what a scoop! anyhow i said "people against intervention" and as far as i know all the people quoted in your post voted for it in congress. democrats better pay attention to the antiwar agenda or they are doomed (and that includes dean)

that is certainly not true. the administration was arguing saddam had wmd: bio, chem, and may be nukes (they knew where they were, mobile labs, etc...) whereas many people against intervention said there was no evidence whatsoever that any of that was true. Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction Speaker: Bush, George - President Date: 9/26/2002 Quote/Claim: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” [source: White House Web site]" http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702 Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction Speaker: Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense Date: 9/19/2002 Quote/Claim: "[saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” [source: DOD Web site]" and dozens of other quotes ...

Hey Jay_B, surely to be consistent you'll now argue to invade Uzbekistan: What drives support for this torturer "tired one-liners and articles of faith along the lines of "No blood for oil!"

meanwhile at PBS: http://www.freepress.net/press/release.php?id=70

do not worry. the administration is investigating the matter: the truth will come out oh btw: http://www.juancole.com/2005/05/guantanamo-controversies-bible-and.html

you must be trolling. in case you are not, maintaining the drive to summit 22 times above 8000m over 16years (which implies many more attempts) while facing the sheer physical and emotional misery of expedition climbing is simply mind-boggling. interestingly the article mentions he'll quit big peak chasing, which should be an indication of how much fun he had tagging the last few on his tick list.

carla is very nice too!

that only 6 people have done it in the ~20 years since the concept was formulated shows that it won't get done very much and it will remain an impressive accomplishment (on many different levels). Which stands to reason considering the sheer monumentality of the task.

Iraq Bombshell Goes Mostly Unreported in US Media

Yeah, you liberals are so "nuanced" and sophisticated that you can make excuses for pure evil. i understand now: when they do it, it's 'pure evil'. when you do it, it's 'collateral damage'. simple enough ...

man, i give up. it's obvious there is no amount of logic or evidence that will make you modulate your tune anyway. i certainly don't care about ideologies: not theirs and not yours either. but i am certain you'll keep on with the binary rhetoric since this is how you articulate your simpleton vision of the world. sigh ...

just so there is no confusion about who is posturing around here: "This is exactly what happened in the Caucasus, where Imperial Russia resorted to the strategy of modern, nationalistically motivated ethnic cleansing and genocide in the 18th and 19th century, and from where the methods used by the Russian Empire against Crimean Tatars, Circassians and Chechens was soon exported to other empires, to target Armenians in the south, and Jews in the west (where anti-Semitism had long roots already). Stalin's attempt to wipe out whole nations from the Caucasus in 1944 only served to solidify the insistence of national independence among the Caucasus nations." http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/2004/rusquagm.htm and "Introduced as the most prominent Russian political figure advocating a change in Russian policy toward Chechnya, Ivan Rybkin began his presentation by noting that he lived for over thirty years in Northern Caucasus. He reflected on his initial encounter as an adolescent with consequences of Stalin's massive deportations that affected many ethnic groups. Chechen people were among these nationalities that became uprooted, exiled, and scattered across territories of northern Kazakhstan and Siberia by Moscow in 1944. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a movement among Chechens arose to assert their autonomy and national selfhood. However, the Chechen struggle for self-determination takes its roots much earlier than the 1990s. According to Rybkin, in the 19th century three million Chechens and other mountain people died fighting for their independence from Russia during the fifty-seven years of the First Caucasian War. The military regime imposed by Imperial Russia on the Chechens lasted until 1917. Later, in the period between 1922 and 1944, continued Chechen resistance to the Soviet authorities forced Moscow to periodically send security forces into the region." http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm?fa=eventDetail&id=525

look who, in fact, is the moral relativist and the apologist ... Not quite. I said to ask them. .... and "compare", as if killing and pillaging for grabbing land was better than killing and pillaging for whatever other reason. or perhaps you'd rather call the former 'collateral damage'. my posts are pretty clear about what i think of mass murders and oppression in any and all contexts, be it under the cover of ideology or the pretense of manifest destiny or whatnot. it boils down to the same thing: power and money.

Talk to the Tatars about what Stalin did to them and compare. look who, in fact, is the moral relativist and the apologist ...

that stalinism didn't invent totalitarianism even though it certainly took oppression to a scale rarely seen in history before. that whoever rebeled against the tsar wasn't necessarily a bloody murderer in waiting and, in fact, many who rebeled fell victim to the bloody murderers who eventually took power. that maintaining historical pespective isn't making the apology of wanton oppression and murder. etc ... talk to the crimeans and the chechens and ... no, some of you only pretented stalinists invented the concept of killing millions of people by putting them behind fences and denying them food (read a little colonial history that'll help) rigth, salazar's portugal or franco's spain or colonial algeria or vietnam or bloody dictators throughout the developping world (philipines, guatemala, nicaragua, etc ...) are such ancient history. perhaps you should go live the peasant life in say columbia and tell us how it compares with your experience behind the iron curtain. starvation was widespread in tsarist russia and it only got worse with WW1 (which caused the revolution). it's a little like saying that since X export shrimp raised in pens, starvation doesn't exist in X. personally, i don't really care about a statue that is widely seen (justly or not) as a cultural relic of the cold war and nothing more. as foraker says at least it's a testimony to the past and as such a good teaching tool. and i am still waiting for that source regarding chomsky.

re-writing history is to pretend that the siberian gulag didn't exist before the soviets or that tsarist russia was a benign society were violence and political murder weren't common happenstance. it isn't an apology for what happened later but it certainly puts it in context.

source?