Brazil's Pirahã Tribe: Living without Numbers or Time - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

Print - Brazil's Pirahã Tribe: Living without Numbers or Time - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

BBC: Debunked "Pancake Theory" Caused Towers To Collapse

BBC: Debunked "Pancake Theory" Caused Towers To Collapse

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Tuesday, September 11, 2007

The BBC has been caught in another 9/11 faux pas
on the anniversary of the attacks, lending credence to a study
that validates the pancake theory as the cause of the twin towers'
collapse, despite the fact that this explanation was dismissed
by NIST itself years ago and it violates the fundamental laws
of physics.

Though the 9/11 truth movement has remained steadfast
in its conclusion that nothing other than explosives or incendiary
devices could have caused the towers to collapse in the way they
did, the "official version" has flip-flopped around
with numerous different explanations as each one was disproved.

One of those explanations became known as the "pancake
theory," an assertion that the rapid collapse of the towers
was due to the weight of each floor creating a domino effect and
pulverizing the floor below it as the collapse progressed.

The problem with this hypothesis is that
it failed to answer why support mechanisms that were completely
undamaged offered next to no resistance as the collapse unfolded,
and it violated the Law of Conservation of Momentum.

"Where is the delay that must be expected due
to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws
of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors
– and intact steel support columns – the fall must
be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central
support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive
mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the
enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling
floor pans," writes Professor Steven Jones in his paper Why
Indeed Did The WTC buildings Collapse?

 

NIST were forced to acknowledge the weakness of
the pancake theory when they tested steel samples from the World
Trade Center.

"The results established that this type of
assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without
collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration
of the fires in any given location on September 11th," concluded
NIST in their Final
Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses
of the World Trade Center Towers.

However, the fact that actual scientific lab tests
of World Trade Center steel completely ruled out the pancake collapse
theory didn't stop the BBC
from lending credence to a new study that claims "mathematics"
has shown that the pancake collapse was plausible. Exactly what these "mathematics" entail
and why they are more reliable than actual scientific lab tests
of WTC steel undertaken by NIST as well as the basic laws of physics
and gravity is not fully explained in the article.

One would think the BBC would be reticent to engage
9/11 truth again after their previous attempts at debunking left
the corporation, disgraced in light of the recent quiz fix scandal,
with a bloody nose.

A February 2007 documentary, pitched as a balanced
investigation into claims made by the 9/11 truth movement, turned
out to be a
bias hit piece characterized by outright lies, spin and emotional
manipulation.

Barely a week later, the BBC were forced to respond
when footage
emerged of their reporters describing the collapse of WTC 7 over
an hour before the building actually fell - leading many to
question how the BBC and other news networks had gained advance
knowledge of what seemed to be an pre-planned script on 9/11.

Stan Jones (Libertarian- Montana) tells the TRUTH

look folks...
without the categorical nonsense about Communism yet including everything you know to be Kafka, all the simple bureaucratic decisions we allow to slip silently past our consciousness are leading us

TO

THIS...

HUGO CHAVEZ addresses the UN... full text

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Hugo Chavez.....
courtesy of Rob Maune
www.myspace.com/robcheetah
Current mood: optimistic



Full text of Chavez's UN speech: Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, Delivers Remarks to U.N. General Assembly, New York

HUGO CHAVEZ, PRESIDENT OF THE BOLIVARIAN REPULIC OF VENEZUELA


September 20, 2006


Madam President, Excellencies, Heads of State, Heads of government and other governments representatives, good morning.

First, and with all respect, I highly recommend this book by Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious intellectuals in America and the world, Chomsky. One of his most recent works: Hegemony or Survival: Americas Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project) . Its an excellent work to understand whats happened in the world in the 20th Century, whats currently happening, and the greatest threat on this planet; the hegemonic pretension of the North American imperialism endangers the human races survival.

We continue warning about this danger and calling on the very same U.S. people and the world to stop this threat, which resembles the Sword of Damocles over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but for the sake of time, I shall just leave it as a recommendation. It reads easily. It's a very good book. I'm sure, Madam, you are familiar with it.

(APPLAUSE)

The book is in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German.

I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil -- the devil, himself, is right in the house.

And the devil came here yesterday.

(APPLAUSE)

Yesterday, the devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of.

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: "The Devil's Recipe."

As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.

The world parent's statement -- cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.

They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.

What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."

Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.

The president then -- and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace."

That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes.

But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.

It wants peace. But what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela -- new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly.

The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision? Is this crossfire?

He's thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, "We're suffering because we see homes destroyed.'

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples -- to the peoples of the world. He came to say -- I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.

And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed -- fully, fully confirmed.

I don't think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let's accept -- let's be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It's worthless.

Oh, yes, it's good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches, like Evo's yesterday, or President Lula's. Yes, it's good for that.

And there are a lot of speeches, and we've heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile.

But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, September 20th, that we re-establish the United Nations.

Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility, our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.

The first is expansion, and Lula talked about this yesterday right here: The Security Councils expansion, both regarding its permanent and non-permanent categories. New developed and developing countries, the Third World, must be given access as new permanent members. That's step one.

Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts, transparent decisions.

Point three, the immediate suppression -- and that is something everyone's calling for -- of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.

Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.

Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we've always said, the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.

Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.

Madam , Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking.

Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.

This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar's home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.

Let's see. Well, there's been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.

The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.

And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there's no need to announce things.

But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us.

Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur.

And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many others.

I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela's thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.

Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said "helplessly optimistic," because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.

As Silvio Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?

What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceania. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.

We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.

Venezuela joins that struggle, and that's why we are threatened. The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.

President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.

And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists.

And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents, in a Cubana de Aviacion airliner, died.

And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.

And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.

And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.

Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I'm here today.

But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.

We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.

And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don't worry, I'm not going to read it.

But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter -- more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.

And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.

And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.

Unfortunately they thought, "Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they're going to be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive, he's back in his green fatigues, and he's now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.

With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I'm now closing my file. I'm taking the book with me. And, don't forget, I'm recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.

We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela.

You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all.

May God bless us all. Good day to you.

demolition

..>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkk8uE-wB2E



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6ufakK2fIc

hate mail from the ignorant... lessons in dialogue

HE WROTE:
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: BT
Date: Sep 14, 2006 9:12 AM


wait do you honestly believe that internet movie loose change? how fuckin dumb can you be? do you honselty believe that three college kids foiled this government conspiracy? give me a break, go read some real books about 9/11 you dumbass. or try talking to anyone that was actually there instead of formulating a dumbass opnion from an INTERNET MOVIE. people like you are the reason why this country is going backwards, ever heard of formulating your own opinion? and here you go smart ass, here is some factual information that proves your loose change bullshit incorrect, what was the main theory, that steel melts at too high of a temperature for jet fuel to melt it?

-For anyone interested in a point-by-point debunking of some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there (like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C), check out the following link:

National Institute of Standards and Technology: Fact Sheet

it sucks being smart doesen't it? just please, think before you open your disgusting mouth, i have friends that are soldiers, and i am sure the family members of people who were lost during 9/11 wouldn't appreciate your bullshit

***
SO I WROTE:

look BS... i mean, BT....
i don't appreciate your attack. if you want to have a discussion, i'm all for it. i, too, have a close friend that is a soldier in Iraq. he believes, as i do, that our government is up to some atrocious covert behaviors (which, mr history book, is nothing new at all.) and i'll have you know that the families of the 9/11 victims confront this issue in a variety of ways, but many of them are members of our groups that push for the truth about 9/11. i was at ground zero last monday and one victims wife, in tears of joy and sorrow, threw her arms around me and kissed me on the cheek while she thanked me and said, "you have no idea how much you have touched me today. thank you so much for doing what you are doing."

with regards to loose change: of course i do not feel that three brave and motivated young men (one ex military, 2 terms served, by the way: http://www.myspace.com/koreyrowe) have debunked a govt conspiracy. i DO believe that they have compiled in an accessible and concise manner the EXTREMELY OBVIOUS facts that support the idea that 9/11 was an inside job... at the very least, that 9/11 deserves the investigation that it never properly received. have you even seen 'loose change'? it is largely a compilation of news clippings taken directly from broadcasts.

i wouldn't even know where to begin debunking your thought processes both because there is SO MUCH information and because you are so obviously upset by any dissent. lemme guess... you watch fox news? do you know ANYTHING about rupert murdoch?
the theorists that support the official 9/11 story have little to go on, which is why they cling to the argument about the temperature at which jet fuel burns.

-"the jet fuel fires... burned off in less than 10 minutes... burned at, or below, temperatures typical in office fires." -WTC bldg performance, FEMA

-"no steel-frame building has EVER been destroyed by fire" -fire engineering magazine

THERE ARE SO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:

-why did bldg 7 fall?
no plane hit that building and there were bldgs in closer proximity that did not fall. and i'm sure you've already read the 9/11 commission report in all its boring splendor, so didn't you wonder why there was ABSOLUTELY NO ANALYSIS of building 7? ... hardly even mentioned...

-where is the pentagon plane? and why won't the pentagon release the 80+ videos from the cameras that surround the "most secure building in the world"?

-where is flight 93?
have you ever tried to use your cell phone at standard flight altitude? i do every time i fly now. no dice.

-why did the government haul away the ground zero rubble in such a timely manner and without allowing an investigation or analysis of the debris? even a residential house fire gets the due process of an analysis. what was their hurry? it certainly was NOT to get to work on building that monument, because here we are 5 years later with zero construction being done there. check this: ..>

our government didn't even respond to the hurricane victims in new orleans as quickly as they got rid of that evidence. and larry silverstein, owner of the world trade center buildings, was paid out 2 fold on the specifically terrorist attack insurance policy he took out JUST WEEKS before 9/11... he made his 7+ BILLION dollars and katrina victims are getting fucking nothing. many people who are insurance policy underwriters have come forward to say that a 3.5 BILLION dollar policy would NEVER have been approved on buildings that weak. because, as everyone who has done any real research on this subject knows, buildings that tall are designed to structurally withstand attacks and/or accidents of that kind. those building were built with a possible plane crash in mind.

-"the towers could probably sustain MULTIPLE impacts of jet liners..." -frank demartino, WTC manager of construction/chief engineer (killed 9/11/01)

structural engineers have come forward with a plethora of evidence supporting the idea that those buildings were demolitioned. one of my favorites-- it is on the record that bldg 1 & 2 each fell in under 12 seconds. the official story: those buildings had begun falling from the points of damage, each floor of concrete and steel falling onto the next floor and causing it to collapse in under 12 seconds. do the math... even if it only took .5 seconds, ONE HALF OF A SECOND, for each of those floors to fall, it would have taken AT LEAST 50 SECONDS FOR THOSE BUILDINGS TO FALL.
those buildings were demolitioned, son.

-NORAD was turned over to a citizen for the fist time ever... on 9/11 dick cheney was in charge of our "fail safe" national security. why?

-on 9/11 and also coincidentally on the day of the oklahoma city bombings our government was running war games in the exact terrorist scenarios that occurred.

-ELEVEN warnings from foreign sources about a spectacular attack on the US were received over several months before 9/11 and ignored. so were several warnings from FBI field agents.

oh this is mostly just off the top of my head and the quotes are right here at my fingertips, there is so much more. if you are interested in some good books on the subject:
"terror timeline" paul thompson
"synthetic terror" webster griffin tarpley

but let me tell you two more things. while over 1000 of us were present at ground zero, silently demanding (with our "investigate 9/11" tee shirts and the passing out of 'loose change' dvds) that our government give us answers and reopen the investigation into 9/11...

1. we were eagerly escorted by the local police and gratefully approached by the firefighters present because THOSE MEN AND WOMEN KNOW that our security systems do not fail on such a massive scale. those men and women lost colleagues and families in that fire and they KNOW the official story is an impossibility. they HEARD the explosions and saw those building drop dead.
and the killing keeps on... the EPA, approved by our idiot prince bush, declared the ground zero site safe for the rescue workers and the air breathable. now everyday there are new reports about the alarming percentages of those first responders who have fallen ill with cancer and other fatal respiratory illnesses. those men and women are scared and they want answers just like we do.
2. we got zero media coverage, not because a movement like this is not newsworthy, but because our government does not want potentially smart people like YOU to go researching for himself.

you seem to have an inquiring mind. in your stephen hawking blog you say that you would feel "violated and deceived by your country if a disaster like this was to take place without having any previous knowledge" (speaking of nuclear disaster) but i think you are putting off your realization of what your government (more precisely, the corporate power infrastructure that puppets your government) is currently doing to your people. and it hardly warrants mentioning that it is business men who work largely with our country responsible for selling a great majority of weaponry and technology to all the countries with which we are now at war. do you not think we have plans to enter syria, iran, and eventually take this war-mongering and money-making machine to world war??

here is a little more hawking for you:



it doesn't suck being smart at all, actually.

C i t i z e n A l e r t: CITIZEN ALERT v1.51COMMON ARTICLE III

The above link leads to a wonderful blog by a very well-informed and concerned citizen by the name of Pepper Berry.
Thanks, Pepper.

The Bush Royalty wants to "clarify" the definition of "crimes of war" which means challenging the Geneva Convention.
Will they stop at nothing??

CITIZEN ALERT v1.51

-Article 3 Common to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949-

Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Does it to you? Noncombatants or combatants who are no longer fighting because they've surrendered or have been imprisoned are to be treated humanely, and cannot be humilated or treated in a degrading way.

How clear is that? That paints some broad strokes for a very simple reason. It covers all forms of torture. The Bush administration finds Article 3 "vague". They want it changed with more specific wording i.e. whatever doesn't show up in the new version gives them clearance to perform that form of torture on detainees.

Consider this exchange at a press briefing with Tony Snow:

TONY SNOW: Some of the language in Common Article II -- Common Article III -- I'm sorry -- is vague. It is not unusual for the United States Congress in such circumstances to use legislation as a way of making clear our treaty obligations....In the case of Common Article III, of course, you have had some of -- the "prohibitions against cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" -- that's important to figure out what that means. As you know, in --

REPORTER: It's vague to you?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it is.

REPORTER: Mean, cruel, inhuman, degrading?

MR. SNOW: Yes, because you have to specify exactly what you mean.

REPORTER: Keep smiling. (Laughter.)

Ouch!

Here's Bush, the brain trust that he is, giving his take on Article 3:

It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation.
What does that mean?! Are you kidding me? Next we'll have to explain what war means to him.

Bush has hit a brick wall thankfully with his own Republican Congress led by Republican Sens. John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina as well as Colin Powell who chimed in with a letter earlier this week . One of the many points that they oppose is the classifying of evidence against a detainee -in effect, barring him from seeing the evidence being used to prosecute him. The Republicans rightly argue that this undermines the credibility of the court. Sometimes it seems Bush's own party has to remind him that in order to spread democracy you need to act democratically.

McCain also adds that, "Weakening the Geneva protections is not only unnecessary, but would set an example to other countries, with less respect for basic human rights, that they could issue their own legislative 'reinterpretations'. This puts our military personnel and others directly at risk in this and future wars."

Now, it was brought up this weekend on the McLaughlin Group that the Bush administration was redefining Common Article 3 to protect themselves (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) from possible prosecution of war crimes which is why I found this statement from the President during his Rose Garden press conference on Friday to be at best disturbing.

I will tell you this, I've spent a lot of time on this issue, as you can imagine, and I've talked to professionals, people I count on for advice -- these are people that are going to represent those on the front line of protecting this country. They're not going forward with the program. They're not going -- the professionals will not step up unless there's clarity in the law. So Congress has got a decision to make: Do you want the program to go forward or not?

He's basically calling the congress out on this one saying that if you don't give us this legislation then the programs come to a halt and the next terrorist attack is your fault. Now, back when everyone was giving him grief over his wiretapping program, he said he didn't care he was protecting American lives and wasn't going to stop the program no matter what. Here, he has suddenly changed his mind - he will stop the programs - he will stop protecting the American people, and if the changes he is requesting are in fact to protect his administration from war crimes, then he is telling the American people: If I go down, I'm taking you with me.



Bush is set to address the UN on Tuesday.
posted by Pepper Berry at 6:27 PM