Mike Gravel Supports Citizens' Ballot Initiative To Investigate 9/11 -- And You Can, Too!

Do you feel like doing a little volunteer work for the truth?

Former Senator Mike Gravel does; he's thrown his support behind a NYC citizens' ballot initiative to force a full investigation of the "terrorist attacks" of September 11, 2001.

He spoke with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! and the transcript has been posted here.

The citizens' group supporting the initiative has a website here, and whether you live in NYC or not, they need your help to get this process moving along a little more quickly.

There aren't many ways in which ordinary citizens can chip away at the bogus foundation of the Global Terror War, so I hope you will support this initiative.

Put it this way: What have you got to do today that's more important?

Mike Gravel Joins The Libertarians

Former Senator Mike Gravel is no longer seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, but he's still running for president.

He's quit the Democrats and joined the Libertarian Party.

Gravel says:

the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views.
...

I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views.

Sometimes I wonder whether Mike Gravel has studied any contemporary political history. It's been a long time since the Democratic Party was "the party of FDR", and it should come as no surprise that the Democratic party likes "war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism".

I also have trouble reconciling Gravel's anti-militaristic views with the Libertarian Party's (laissez-faire, "free market") economic policy, since in my view the military industrial complex is both the inevitable result of laissez-faire capitalism and the force which precludes the existence of any "free market".

But perhaps this is a good sign; if Mike Gravel is caught in a bind between what he says he believes and actual verifiable reality, then perhaps the other candidates will begin to see that he has something in common with all of them.

No Kidding: Candidates For PEACE!!

One of the most vexing questions on the American political landscape, now and as far back as I can remember, is: "Can we ever hope to change the system from within?"

Some people believe it is possible to do so while others do not; I encourage open discussion and I'm not about to discourage any legitimate point of view.

Personally, I would love to see it happen although I do not know whether it's possible. On the other hand, just like anything else, it's definitely not possible unless somebody tries to do it -- not that it hasn't been tried, if you get my drift.

For this reason I have supported some apparently hopeless causes, such as the presidential aspirations of Mike Gravel. I never believed he could be president, or even the donkey candidate for president, but I appreciated his voice and much of what he was saying.

At this point it doesn't look like Gravel's going to be the donkey nominee, and the way in which he has been closed out of the national discussion has been most instructive; but that hasn't stopped some other people -- such as Maine's Laurie Dobson -- from trying to bring the same issues to the national scene in the old-fashioned way: by standing up to be seen, speaking up to be heard, asking fellow citizens for their votes, and hoping that those votes would be correctly counted.

It's quite a stretch for some, but not so for others; and it's definitely worth doing, in my opinion, even if only to enhance the debate.

Who's game?

How would you like a nine-month job for $160,000 a year?

No experience required, and no prerequisites! Do you think you can handle it?

If you're semi-literate or better; if you're able to speak whole sentences (or at least convincing fragments) when cameras and microphones are around; if you look half-decent in a suit (or a dress*); if you're willing to say "NO" every time the warmongers want more money: you're one of the people I'm talking to.

We want you in Congress! (* dresses for women and Rudy Giuliani impersonators only, please!)

If you're brave enough to stand up and be seen, speak up and be heard, run for office and be counted, then Peace Candidates dot Com will support you.

And if you're willing to support your fellow citizens who are brave enough to stand up, speak up, and run for office in the cause of peace, then you should visit, join and/or support Peace Candidates dot Com.

I have started a blog there which I hope will help the effort eventually; I wish the Peace Candidates all the best and I hope to be able to spend more time there in the future.

I've been otherwise detained; I'll get back there soon. But you can go there now!

Damned: The Bloody Lies That Condemn Us All

The Center for Public Integrity has compiled an infinitely searchable catalog of the 935 lies told by the president and seven other top administration officials in order to instigate war between the United States and Iraq.

These deliberate (and in most cases, scripted) lies were told over a two-year period and were built on two basic fictional building blocks: [1] that Iraq threatened us with weapons of mass destruction, and [2] that Iraq supported al Qaeda and therefore bore responsibility for the attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the intelligence community, and in the well-informed segment of the general populace, both claims were widely known to be false, yet they were used and re-used and denied and debunked and embroidered and pasted together and used and re-used again, until the Mission was Accomplished and the United States was involved in a foreign war it couldn't get out of.

The eight administration officials indicted by this compilation are: the twice unelected President George W. Bush, the twice unelected Vice President Dick Cheney, current Secretary of State and former National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, and former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

The deliberately deceitful actions of these eight people (and the many others who followed their lead) have resulted directly and immediately in the unwarranted deaths of at least a million people, and the unnecessary destruction of the lives of millions more. And it will kill and ruin many more, no matter how or when it ends.

By any civilized standard, all eight officials listed above are obviously guilty of mass murder, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

By any civilized standard, all eight should be arrested immediately and given speedy trials, which if fair would surely result in their convictions and public executions.

People of goodwill everywhere could only hope for the executions to be as slow and as painful as possible -- and seen and understood by billions.

But we all know that will never happen. We all know nothing even remotely like that will ever happen. And by failing to make that happen -- by failing to stop everything for as long as necessary in order to force that to happen -- We The People of the United States hereby forfeit any claim to being a civilized nation.

The lies in the database condemn the eight individuals listed above, and all their sycophants. But the failure to oppose them in any meaningful way condemns the rest of us.

We could stand shoulder-to-shoulder by the millions and shut down every big city. We could sit bumper-to-bumper in far smaller numbers and shut down the whole country.

We could. But we won't. And why not? Because we don't know enough? Or because we don't care enough?

It seems to me we know more than we ever did, so we must care less than ever. And the current political races seem to bear me out.

In the Democratic party there is one presidential candidate who would stop the war in Iraq immediately and whose platform is based on letting the people make the laws of the land. And he can't get into a debate and he can't get on TV and he can't raise any money and he can't get his poll numbers above 1%.

And that's in the so-called opposition party! Damn!

NBC Makes Up Arbitrary Rules To Bar Mike Gravel From October 30 Debate In Philadelphia

The news item excerpted below was published by the Associated Press on Friday, October 19, 2007, and would have been warmly received by Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and the people running their campaigns:

Gravel fails to meet rules for Democratic debate

Mike Gravel will not be part of the next Democratic presidential debate, Oct. 30 in Philadelphia.

The former Alaska senator did not meet fundraising and polling requirements for the forum, said NBC News political director Chuck Todd.

The two-hour debate, sponsored by NBC News and the Democratic National Committee, will be telecast on MSNBC. Brian Williams will moderate.

All the other Democratic candidates are expecting to participate, including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd; former Sen. John Edwards; New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

But it hasn't been warmly received by Mike Gravel. Here, via the Huffington Post, is his response:

Why NBC and the DNC Want Me Out of the Debates

In the past year, I have attended 11 national Democratic debates of which two were sponsored by corporate media giant NBC. However, last week, the network suddenly conjured up arbitrary polling and fundraising requirements specifically designed to exclude me. None of the previous debates I attended held such requirements.

When my staff called NBC directly to find out why I was now barred from attending, Chuck Todd, NBC news' political director, told us that there were three criteria we did not meet, namely that I had not campaigned in New Hampshire and/or Iowa at least 14 times in the past year, that I was not polling at 5% and that I hadn't raised $1 million.

It is abundantly clear that NBC just wants me out of the race. This was made evident by the fact that NBC did not even inform me of its arbitrary criteria before making the decision to stifle my campaign. NBC's Todd waited until 5 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 19, to inform my staff that I was not invited to the Oct. 30 debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

Since I announced my candidacy for the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States on April 17, 2006, I have certainly traveled to New Hampshire and Iowa at least 14 times. And, according to a recent CNN poll, I am tied with Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd.

NBC claims I haven't raised enough money to qualify. I'm proud of the fact that I don't collect millions from special interests (or fugitives like Norman Hsu). The reason why Senator Hillary Clinton seems to have a fundraising scandal every month is because money has corrupted our democracy. By stifling my voice on the basis of fundraising dollars, NBC is reinforcing the power of money over our national political discussion and our freedom.

But why has NBC suddenly come up with "requirements" designed to exclude me from the debate?

NBC's decision is proof that our corporate media do not want a genuine debate over our impending war with Iran. During the last debate I was the only one to aggressively confront Senator Clinton over her vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Had I not brought up the subject, seasoned NBC commentator Tim Russert, the moderator of the Sept. 26 debate, would not have even asked about it.

Most Americans still don't appreciate the gravity of that vote and they don't understand that our government is intentionally raising roadblocks to diplomacy. Corporate media have once again failed to investigate how Bush and a compliant congress have set us on the warpath. Instead the media simply parrots the demonization of Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the administration's unproven accusations against Iran. NBC and the other corporate media have jumped on the war bandwagon and they are determined to shut up anyone who tries to stop it.

The fact that NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the world's leading military contractors, is frightening and certainly smacks of censorship directed at the most outspoken critic of the influence that the military-industrial complex holds over this great nation. In the past decade, GE has benefited financially from the global war on terrorism and currently holds almost $2 billion in military contracts.

So I ask that anyone, who is as concerned as I am about the power of the mainstream media and the military-industrial complex, speak out in support of my campaign today. And, even if you support another candidate, surely you understand the implications of NBC's decision for our democracy and the future peace and security of our nation.

And since the powers that be now require that I raise $1 million in order to participate in the debates, please make a donation to my campaign. Unlike my fellow candidates, I am not focused on raising million of dollars; I am focused on fixing representative government. Help us reach that arbitrary threshold, and I will continue to fight for democracy and peace.

Senator Mike Gravel

Ain't that a kick?

Here, courtesy of Village Green, are some things you can do about it:

1. Sign the online petition to have Mike Gravel included in the debate!

2. Contact NBC and GE and tell them they are wrong for trying to stifle his campaign!

Here are the email addresses: you can copy and paste them into your "TO:" field of your email:

chuck.todd@nbcuni.com, viewerservices@msnbc.com, directors@corporate.ge.com, ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com, jeff.zucker@nbcuni.com, lynn.calpeter@nbcuni.com, steve.capus@nbcuni.com

3. Email the DNC and urge them to press NBC to allow Mike Gravel to participate in the debate.

Here's another idea:

4. Write to Dr. Constantine Papadakis, the President of Drexel University, and ask the same of him.

papadakis@drexel.edu

One final note: See what John Edwards has to say about this:

It is essential, in a Democracy, for all voices to be heard. We should continue to attempt to adhere to this Democratic ideal.

So please contact the DNC and MSNBC today about Mike Gravel's exclusion. And, please, spread the word about this.

Please note that this is the very same John Edwards who said in July:

"We should think about at some point ... maybe some time in the fall, we'll try to have a more serious debate with a smaller group of people."

What's the difference between then and now? He didn't know his mic was on then.

Mike Gravel: Senate Democrats Were Elected To End A War, Not Start A New One

Here's Mike Gravel on the Democratic front-runners, from Huffington Post via Dandelion Salad:

Hillary Clinton was either misinformed or economical with the truth in Wednesday night’s debate when she responded to my challenge to her by saying the Senate’s resolution earlier in the day on Iran was designed to permit economic sanctions against individual members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

She and her staff should know the United Nations Security Council on March 24 already slapped economic sanctions on individual Guard Members. Like the Red Army in China, Iran allows Guard commanders to own and run private companies. Security Council Resolution 1747, which the United States voted for, froze financial assets held outside Iran on the seven military commanders, including General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr and six other admirals and generals.

I know of no law dictating the State Department must first designate individuals or groups as terrorists before sanctions can be imposed on them. Dozens of countries have been under U.S. unilateral sanctions that are not designated as terrorist. The U.S. first imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979 over the hostages, not terrorism. The only possible purpose of the Senate resolution asking the State Department to designate the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization is to set it up for military attack in George Bush’s war on terror.

As Virginia senator Jim Webb valiantly said in the Senate, the United States has never before designated the military services of a sovereign state a terrorist group. Indeed, though there is international dispute over the definition of terrorism, there is little disagreement on the legal point that terrorists are non-state actors who target civilians, i.e., never members of a government. Governments can be guilty of war crimes, but not terrorism. And the resolution talks about attacks on American troops, not civilians.

The hypocrisy of Hillary and the 75 other senators who called for more unilateral sanctions on Iran, was exposed Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier who said, according to Spiegel Magazine, that American companies are violating existing U.S. sanctions by surreptitiously doing business with Iran through front companies in Dubai.

Joe Lieberman wrote the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq that was passed with Democratic support on October 11, 2002. Lieberman’s new resolution setting up a Bush-Cheney invasion of Iran passed by 76 to 22 with Democratic backing on September 26, 2007. These are two dates that will live in infamy in the 21st century. Led by Senator Clinton, it was another sad day for the Senate and for Senate Democrats, who were elected to the majority in November in order to end a war, not start a new one.

I like Mike.

Democrats May Have Confidence, But In What?

Adam Nagourney of the New York Times can sure spin a good one. He managed to write

Democrats said that ending the war was their top priority

in the midst of an article that only mentions three Democratic candidates, all current Senators, none of whom has ever used the Senate as a platform to launch any serious attempt to end the war in Iraq (while all have pretended to do so). Excerpts follow:

NYT : For Democrats, Primary Field Gives Confidence (or here):

“I think Hillary is pretty strong,” said Lesley Cain, a dentist, as she sat out in the afternoon sun on Market Square in Portsmouth, N.H., waiting for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton to arrive for a Labor Day rally. “But I think Obama is good, too. It’s a flip at this point.”

Carol Brackett, 51, a retired dental technician from Portland, Me., said: “I love the field of Democrats. This is going to be hard.”
...

Again and again, voters — often unprompted — said they were concerned that Mr. Obama did not have enough experience.

“Not this year — he’s not ready,” said Karen Smith, 63, who works for a medical technologies firm in Portsmouth, and who said she was leaning toward Mrs. Clinton. “But he’ll be back.”

Some expressed concern that Mrs. Clinton, as a general-election candidate, would be hurt by voter animosity that has accumulated over the years. “Hillary has the baggage from the Bill years, and all the various scandals they have been through,” said Ken Purington, 50, of Rollinsford, N.H.

And Mr. Edwards, who campaigned across New Hampshire last week, was rarely named by voters when they were asked who they were considering, suggesting the difficulty he continues to face in his second bid for the presidency against two better-known candidates running for the first time.

“He is too much of the same old thing: it is time for something different,” Emily Vance, a 22-year-old writer, said in a break from reading the newspapers at a gallery in Jacksonville, Fla.

"It is time for something different," said Emily Vance. And which candidate is Emily Vance supporting? Adam Nagourney either didn't ask, or decided not to share. Or maybe the decision was made for him. Who can say?

It's remarkable that an article about confidence among Democratic voters should spend so much ink on the perceived weaknesses of the leading Democratic candidates -- or is it?

Nagourney closes with this mind-boggling sequence:

Democrats said that ending the war was their top priority, though there was no sign that Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards were gaining an edge on the issue over Mrs. Clinton by noting that she had originally voted for the authorization allowing the war.

“With more information, you become more informed, you change your position,” said Barbara Wilson, an employer trainer from Maine, who said “the war has to stop — the war has to stop now.”

Thus Barbara Wilson, who opposes the war and wants it to end now, finds her statement juxtaposed with meaningless drivel masquerading as political analysis, making it seem that she finds all three candidates equally appealing, from an anti-war perspective.

But you could read the whole article a thousand times without ever geting the slightest whiff of the absurd notion that there might be an anti-war candidate in the running, let alone two.

If the "liberal media" were slanted any further to the right, every thinking person in the whole country would implode simultaneously.

They Don't Want You To Know Any Of This:

Anger And Wit: A Powerful Combination
Mike Gravel On The Colbert Report
Mike Gravel On Antiwar Radio With Scott Horton
Senator Gravel To Introduce Legislation Forcing An End To The War In Iraq
Gravel Press Conference Draws Almost Zero Coverage
VIDEO: Mike Gravel: Why No Senator Who Voted For The War Is Qualified To Be President
Donkey Hopefuls Kick Out The Jams In New Hampshire
Mike Gravel In The Second Democratic Debate
Dem NH Debate: Kucinich 'Draws Blood', 'Horrifies Liberals Everywhere'
VIDEO: The Military Industrial Media Complex Vs The American People
How CNN Sk(r)ewed The NH Debates
NH Dem Insider: 'Networks Should Dis-Invite Gravel'
Two Unconventional: Mike Gravel's YouTube Videos
VIDEO: Mike Gravel Explains ROCK And FIRE To Dim-Witted Journalist
Mike Gravel Would End The War On Drugs If Elected
VIDEO: Mike Gravel Meets 9/11 Truth Head-On!
Edwards, Hillary Looking For 'A More Serious Debate' ... Without The Anti-War, Pro-Impeachment Gadflies
Mike Gravel Answers YouTube Question: Were All The Vietnam Deaths In Vain?
VIDEO: Mike Gravel Explains The Similarities Between Iraq And Vietnam

VIDEO : Mike Gravel Explains The Similarities Between Iraq And Vietnam

Remember when George Bush used to say Iraq and Vietnam had nothing in common?

Do you also remember when George Bush used Vietnam as a parallel to "justify" staying in Iraq?

Mike Gravel remembers Vietnam, too. But he remembers it the way it was, not the way the president would like it to have been.

Watch. Listen. Learn.

I Like Mike!

Mike Gravel: War As A Game Of Chess

Here's the text from Mike Gravel's new campaign video.

How do you like it?

Chess Anyone?

The Bush Administration Seems To Think
That Acts Of Foreign Policy
Can Be Enacted as Players on a Chessboard
But Countries Like Iraq,
Ira, North Korea, Syria
Are Far More Than Squares On A Chessboard

They Are Nations
With People
And Customs
With Children
And Hopes And Dreams

Our Government
Has Been Treating War
As a Game of Chess
For Far Too Long

It's Time They Stop Cheating

To Get Empowered
And End "Board Game" Decision Making
On The World Stage

Mike Gravel
For President
2008

www.gravel2008.us
www.ni4d.us

Please watch the video here at Dandelion Salad via YouTube.

And tell me how you like that too, if you're moved to do so.

Mike Gravel Answers YouTube Question: Were All The Vietnam Deaths In Vain?

During the Democratic YouTube debate, Mike Gravel fielded a question from John Cantees, who asked the former Senator whether he wished to defend his statement to the effect that all the American soldiers who died in Vietnam died in vain. Regarding the video, John Cantees writes:

This is former senator Mike Gravel responding to my YouTube debate submission with Barak Obama and John Edwards putting in their two cents as well.

And, just to be clear, I actually support Mike Gravel 100% and I personally agree with his statement. However, I was concerned about how other Americans with different views might take it.

So don't think that I'm just trying to poke holes in Mike's views. I was just trying to set him up for an opportunity to give a very passionate and straight-forward answer which is something that the other candidates don't always do.

You can watch the video here.

Mike Gravel's "passionate and straight-forward answer" includes the line: "The only thing worse than a soldier dying in vain is more soldiers dying in vain."

That's probably too radical to get Mike Gravel elected -- or even nominated -- but it doesn't go far enough for me.

Where does he rate killing defenseless, innocent people -- en masse, and for profit? Does that rank third on his list? Or lower still?

I hope he didn't mean it the way he said it, because I don't remember seeing "Thou Shalt Not Die" among the ten commandments, and in my opinion it takes a perverse sense of "morality" to see dying as worse than killing.

On the other hand, Mike Gravel is on the verge of being thrown out of the debates already, after speaking freely about the damage our troops have suffered. Imagine the flak that would fly if he spoke freely about the damage they have caused!

Edwards, Hillary Looking For 'A More Serious Debate' ... Without The Anti-War, Pro-Impeachment Gadflies

Steve Huntley in the Chicago Sun-Times:

[John] Edwards and [Hillary] Clinton [...] at Thursday's NAACP Presidential Forum in Detroit [...] didn't know their post-debate conversation was being picked up by Fox News microphones.

Edwards walked up to Clinton at her podium and said, "We should think about at some point ... maybe some time in the fall, we'll try to have a more serious debate with a smaller group of people."

Clearly agreeing, Clinton said, "We've got to cut the numbers of these, because they are just being trivialized."

"And they're not serious," Edwards answered. "They're not serious."

The Fox video shows Edwards walking away and Clinton following and saying, "I think there was an effort by our campaign to do that, but it somehow got detoured. We've gotta get back to it."

Then in a moment of high comedy, one of the targets of their plot, Kucinich, walks by and Clinton shakes his hand. The Ohio congressman is still in the picture frame as Clinton tells Edwards, "Our guys should talk."

Beautiful! And even

after learning that the conversation had been caught on an open microphone, Edwards' office said he was not trying to limit who participates in the forums. Nonsense. That was exactly what he was trying to do ...

Incredible! Even after being caught on network television saying one thing, they come out with a new spin: He wasn't trying to do what he was obviously trying to do.

Steve Huntley thinks it's a brilliant idea:

Look, it was good to have all the contenders on stage in the first couple of debates. But now we've seen Gravel whack Clinton over her husband's support of free trade and we've heard a couple of GOP wannabes explain why the theory of evolution isn't real.

They've had their time in the spotlight, and these forums need to start focusing on the policies and views of the candidates who actually have a shot at winning.

LV has much more, including the video, at his blog.

VIDEO: Mike Gravel Meets 9/11 Truth Head-On!

Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth member Eric Jackman asks Sen. Gravel about his career, his candidacy, and his position with respect to a new 9/11 investigation.

Senator Gravel handles the questions in his usual style -- direct and to the point. It's no wonder so many pundits don't know what to make of him. And it's no wonder all the wingnuts hate him so much.

Feast your eyes!

... or click here to watch the video @ YouTube.

John Conyers, Ron Paul and Mike Gravel -- This Week With George Stephanopolis!

No kidding!

Our EXCLUSIVE headliner this Sunday is Rep. John Conyers, Jr., D-Mich. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee joins me in advance of his committee's hearing next week on President Bush's grant of clemency for Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Next, we continue our award-winning "On the Trail" series with two presidential hopefuls, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska.

Check you local listings! ;-)

Monday afternoon UPDATE: ABC has the video online.

Mike Gravel Would End The War On Drugs If Elected

Here (or here!) is Mike Gravel, from last Thursday's Democratic Presidential debate, explaining his position on the War on Drugs.

Nobody wants to say it out loud, but it seems to me that the so-called "War On Drugs" is not an honest attempt to eradicate "recreational" drugs and those who use them. It looks a lot more like a turf war: an attempt to eradicate those who make a lot of money on the global drug trade without being connected to the CIA.

But nobody wants to say so, lest they be found to have committed suicide by multiple gunshot wounds to the head. So instead the people who oppose the war on drugs, like Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul (to name the three major-party candidates who are campaigning against it), are forced to attack it on other grounds. And there are plenty of those to go around.

It's sort of like some other issues, where telling the whole truth is not seen as politically viable. But in this case, half-truth is more than enough.

At least that's how it seems to me, and of course I could be wrong.

What do you think?

VIDEO: Mike Gravel Explains ROCK And FIRE To Dim-Witted Journalist

In answer to questions asked previously on this very page, here's former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, via YouTube.

It's hilarious! It's beautiful! "Rock" may not be winning Mike Gravel any numbers in the polls, but it is getting him meetings with dim-witted journalists! Who could ever ask for more?

Can't see it? Click here!

For more about Mike Gravel click here, and/or here.

And a tip of the frozen cap to Jeff Hoard at News Bloggers dot AOL dot com!

Two Unconventional: Mike Gravel's YouTube Videos

A couple of unusual videos from Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Gravel have surfaced on YouTube, to mixed (mostly negative) reactions.

Rock

Fire

Opinions

Several other bloggers (no links, please!) have already posted these videos and expressed their ignorant opinions. (And I'm using the word "ignorant" in the technical sense, meaning "lacking knowledge", because nobody seems to have any idea what these videos are about.)

I'm equally ignorant, so I have no quarrel with any other bloggers on that score. But I'm reluctant to foist my ignorance on others. So instead of passing judgment, I'm simply asking:

What do you think of these videos?

If you can't see the embedded video links, try these: [ Rock | Fire ]

A Nation Of Vicious Idiots: Waging Endless War Against The Third World, And Proud Of It

All sorts of people make all sorts of noise about all sorts of things including "unity" and "tolerance" and "all men are created equal".

At the risk of offending believers of conventional wisdom, at the risk of challenging fundamentalist interpretations of our supposedly perfect founding documents: BS!

All men are not created equal. You can tell just by looking at them. Some are tall, some are short. Some are thin, some are fat. Some are smarter than others. Some are left-handed. And so on.

But when it comes down to what really matters, there are essentially three types of Americans: those who enjoy living in a country that wages continuous war against the third world, those who abhor it, and those who know nothing about it whatsoever.

Watch this video and you will never again fall into the third category.

The War Against the Third World: What I've Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy

CIA covert operations and US military interventions since World War II. A video compilation of footage and speeches recorded in the 1980s and 1990s. What you didn't learn in school and don't hear on the mainstream media.

(If you can't see the video, click here.)

Now...

If you enjoy living in a nation that wages continuous war against the third world, if you can kill, maim and torture for fun and profit and call it serving your country, if you are proud of what your country has done and want to see more of it, you should be reading bob cassiday, who wrote:

What a motley crew the party of Carter and Clinton has produced for this election season. Once the party of Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, you have a whole different mindset among this collection of union thugs, abortion advocates, flag burners, and hippies. It is no wonder that their front runner is the loudmouthed wife of the former President, Hillary.
...

Mike Gravel, I have no respect for any candidate who wants to legalize narcotics. Not to worry, this guy won't get anywhere. Oh, and thanks for helping end the draft, Mike, so we can raise generation after generation of men who are not asked to serve their country.
...

If the apathy is fading, the American people are starting to pay attention, and the "great silent majority" is starting to make some noise and fight back against all of the Leftist baloney they have been fed for the last forty years, that is bad news for the Democratic Party.

Speaking of Harry Truman, speaking of forty years ago, let me make one thing perfectly clear:

It didn't have to be like this. It didn't have to be anything like this.

I can barely type at the moment, but I can copy and paste pretty well. The following comment is still germane, IMO, even though I typed it a couple of years ago, on another blog, in response to a commenter who espoused the ideas that war is the answer and Vietnam is the proof:

In case you weren't paying attention, let me remind you: the Vietnamese people had never done anything to the United States -- but we waged war on them anyway. In that war we killed about 2 million Vietnamese civilians. We also made about 4 million Vietnamese people homeless. Our reckless use of chemical weapons such as Agent Orange caused widespread cancer and birth defects. Nixon's secret and illegal bombing of Cambodia destabilized a friendly government and left a power vacuum that was filled by the genocidal regime of Pol Pot -- leading directly to the deaths of another 2 million innocent people.

And what good has come of it? In 1975 when American troops finally left, Vietnam adopted a communist nationalist government, the very thing we were supposedly trying to prevent. So in that sense, we did not achieve a single thing. And more than 4 million people died for nothing.

Nothing, Jose. They died for no reason at all unless you count the fact that people who should have known better thought war was the answer.

Ho Chi Minh was a friend and ally of the USA during World War II, Jose. Did you know that? An American intelligence agent (Archimedes Patti) gave him his first weapons. Did you know that? Ho Chi Minh helped America throw the Japanese out of Indochina and he wanted to help us throw France out as well. But FDR was dead and so was his notion of "self-determination for all peoples". And harry truman was now the president and he was not only totally uninformed on world affairs but he was also a vicious little prick. And when harry truman told Ho Chi Minh to go buck a water fuffalo, that was the end of any chance for peace and stability in the region.

If the USA had stood with its wartime ally, Ho Chi Minh; if the USA had embraced the idea of Vietnamese national self-determination rather betraying it; if the USA had stood by its announced principles after the war, rather than rejecting them in favor of French colonialism; modern Vietnam's government would certainly be nationalist -- as it is today -- but it might very well be anti-communist, and it might even be pro-American. Ho Chi Minh would never have gone to Russia and China for help if he could have obtained help from the USA.

But no! truman told Ho to go screw and what was the result? Millions and millions of innocent people dead -- millions and millions more innocents homeless -- untold grief and anguish in America as well as Southeast Asia -- and all because some vicious little prick thought more war was the answer. In fact the answer was simple -- but harry truman was not about to tell the French to get their armies the hell out of Vietnam and let the Vietnamese people live their lives in peace -- even though it would have made perfect sense, even though the American government had trumpeted the principle of self-determination all through the war, and even though America, having rescued the French from the Nazis, did not owe France one thin dime...

Yeah, I know: That was then, this is now. Now the answer is not for American troops to be planting explosives in Iraqi cars and trucks in a transparent attempt to trigger a civil war. Now the answer is not for Americans to contaminate Iraq any further with our radioactive ammunition. Now the answer is not more indiscriminate bombing of residential neighborhoods. Further violence by Americans in Iraq can only make this horrible situation even worse.

And as for you, Jose, I've had enough of your bullshit. Why don't you take your five bucks [it has been reported that disinfo bloggers are paid $5 per post] and hit the road? In fact, why don't you go spend some time with the people who share your views? Why don't you just click here and start being all you can be?

That's right, Jose! Put your soft tissue where your mouth is! Enjoy the war, always remember that war is the answer, and don't worry. We'll still be your friends, even though we're staying here -- and that's a good thing, too, because you're gonna need friends like us to bury your sorry ass when it comes home in a box.

I spelled harry truman's name in lower case back then as a sign of respect. None.

Speaking of bob cassiday, his rant against Mike Gravel drew a comment from Brad Spangler, to wit:

Re: "Oh, and thanks for helping end the draft, Mike, so we can raise generation after generation of men who are not asked to serve their country."

Good news! You're still young enough to enlist. :)

To which the vicious ignorant prick replied:

I'm too old, have a career, a wife, and a daughter. Were I 21, unmarried, without a daughter, I'd bee in uniform right now.

If that's not good enough of an answer for you, bring back the draft.

It goes without saying that this is chickenhawk bullshit of the most pungent variety. Sacrifice other people's lives and limbs in the wars I want our country to fight. But not me. I have a family. I have a career. I'm better than other people: let them die while I enjoy my life.

This guy's serious. And he's far from alone.

Watch some of his buddies throw a stun grenade at a shepherd for a joke -- and record it on video (WMV: Right-click here and "Save As..."). bob cassiday would be laughing along with them if he were 21, single, childless and jobless. And he's not even smart enough -- or decent enough -- not to say so in a very public place.

On the other hand, some Americans are actual human beings, with brains and hearts, who feel pain and emotions such as empathy, and who believe mass murder and grand theft -- and throwing a stun grenades as a "joke" -- are sins against Almighty God and crimes against humanity, even if the victims live elsewhere; even if the victims live differently.

There will be no unity. There will be no tolerance. There will be no third category.

Are you with us or against us?

Dear Alaska: Meet Mike Gravel

From the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner:

Former U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska opened his campaign for president more than a year ago at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. It was the real deal, complete with supporters, reporters and television cameras.

His odds of success, he knew at the time, were long.

“Who knows, the American people are so fed up with dysfunctional government that anything is possible today,” he said then.

Not much has changed, but Mike Gravel plods along at the back of the pack, ever the determined Alaskan. He gets a few drops of ink here and there in the press and a few moments of air time. He continues on, however, using the platform of a presidential campaign to get attention — albeit quite limited — for the things he believes in.

It’s been a long time since Mr. Gravel served in the Senate — nearly a generation. He served from 1969 to 1980, when he lost in the Democratic primary. Republican Frank Murkowski went on to claim the seat in that year’s general election.

The passage of so much time makes it fairly likely that Alaskans probably know as little about their former senator as the rest of the nation does. So here are few clues, taken from some of the recent accounts of Sunday’s Democratic presidential candidates debate in New Hampshire:

* “Two long shot hopefuls — former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich — denounced what they called the lack of leadership by congressional Democrats after voters returned them to power last November.”

* “At the conclusion of the two-hour debate, the candidates were asked what their top priority would be for their first 100 days in office: … Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel: Remind congressional leaders they can end the war in Iraq now.”

* “To a question on whether English should be the official language in the United States, only former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel raised his hand in the affirmative.”

* “Asked what role former President Clinton would play in a new Democratic White House: … Gravel said he would use him as a traveling goodwill ambassador. ‘He can take his wife with him, she’ll still be in the Senate.’”

He may not have the votes, but at least he has a sense of humor.

And it's not only his sense of humor that sets him apart; it's also his deep reverence for human life -- even if the humans look a bit different!

What a remarkable departure from contemporary American politics.

Have a good look, Alaska. This may be your last chance.

NH Dem Insider: 'Networks Should Dis-Invite Gravel'

Former New Hampshire Democratic Party chairwoman Kathy Sullivan says that for future debates, "the networks should politely dis-invite Mr. Gravel."

"He just detracts from the time from the other candidates," Sullivan said. "He's not a serious candidate."

Which debate was Kathy Sullivan watching? And who the MF is she to tell us that Mike Gravel isn't serious?

He's the most serious of the bunch, Kathy. Not nearly serious enough for me, but a damn sight more serious than any of the others.

Mike Gravel speaks for the majority of Democrats -- and the majority of Americans -- on the most important issue anyone ever gets to talk about on television.

His position on Iraq -- "Get out now, or go to prison" -- makes perfect sense. Likewise his contention that anyone who voted for the war is unfit for the presidency. If there's any reason to dis-invite Mike Gravel, it's because he has an affinity for human life.

But of course Kathy Sullivan can't say that. And neither can any of the other party hacks -- from either party.

They would rather be complicit in ongoing mass murder than part of the solution.

Guillotines are far too good for these people.

How CNN Sk(r)ewed The NH Debates

Over at Chris Dodd dot Com they've been tracking the amount of time allocated to each of the speakers during the most recent debates and the results are almost exactly what you'd expect if you figured the production was sk(r)ewed in favor of certain (read: pro-war) candidates.

Lookee here:


The top four in the Donkey debate were Obama (16 minutes), Clinton (14:26), Blitzer (13:24) and Edwards (11:42), followed by Richardson (10:48), Kucinich (9:02), Dodd (8:28), Biden (7:58) and Gravel (5:37).


In the Elephant debate, the lion's share of the clock went to Blitzer (19:34), McCain (12:44), Giuliani (12:35) and Romney (11:04), followed by Brownback (7:12), Hunter (7:14), Huckabee (6:48), Glimore (5:59), Paul (5:51), Tancredo (5:43) and Thompson (4:21).

The first surprise: Dennis Kucinich ahead of both Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. Is Joltin' Joe sinking that fast? Hard to believe ...

The second surprise: Ron Paul ahead of two -- count 'em -- two other Elephants!

The third surprise: Fred Thompson got even less time than Mike Gravel. But then again he doesn't need any, since middle America plans to watch Law & Order reruns forever anyway.

And now ... drum roll ... the obvious conclusion: Wolf Blitzer for President!!

Don't you think?