Surfing the internet, and I stumbled across a forgotten name...Blogstream. Checked it out, front page says they were closing in April.

But I still see activity. So, what's the deal?

And I wonder, is anyone still around that I knew oh so long ago?

So, I'll post this, and see what happens.

Enough is enough. No, I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to stay and fight for the light, and stand up for what is right. And though I may lose my readership, so be it. This must be said, someone has to take a stand, so I am saying it and taking that stand.

Cherokee Musings

Keith Olbermann nails it, HARD! enjoy!

Keith Olbermann On Fuzzy's Blog

Thanks Fuzzy!!!!

I gotta admit, it makes me LAUGH to see the worm finally turn, and watch the internet freepers twisting themselves into PRETZELS trying to rewrite history! 

President Clinton, here's a STANDING OVATION for your job well done on Fox News! 

I'm glad you FINALLY got a perfect opportunity to ram Wag the Dog down their throats, and now it's time to DOG THE WAGGERS!!!!!!!!

Here are two sites that have done a very good job of fact-checking on what Clinton said, what history shows, and the right wing spin on it all, you can find LOTS more in a search, but these two do it very well......

---

From The Agonist, an EXCELLENT selection of snippets of DOCUMENTED HISTORY that back up the statements made by Clinton regarding the Wag the Dog attitude of right wingers, when he was doing his damndest to act while they sneered and fought him on every turn....here are a couple of examples...

Clinton Sending Reinforcements After Heavy Losses in Somalia

By R. W. APPLE JR.

(...)

On Capitol Hill, such senior figures as Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, expressed support for the President's policy. But there was also sharp criticism, with Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, calling for an immediate end to "these fatal cops-and-robbers operations," and Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican who sits on the Armed Services Committee, stating bluntly, "Clinton's got to bring them home."

(...)

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/search4osama.html (This is a long piece, so I cut and pasted items germane to the subject)

Clarke told me that in the mid-nineties “the C.I.A. was authorized to mount operations to go into Afghanistan and apprehend bin Laden.” President Clinton, Clarke said, “was really gung-ho” about the scenario. “He had no hesitations,” he said. “But the C.I.A. had hesitations. They didn’t want their own people killed. And they didn’t want their shortcomings exposed. They really didn’t have the paramilitary capability to do it; they could not stage a snatch operation.” Instead of trying to mount the operation themselves, Clarke said, “the C.I.A. basically paid a bunch of local Afghans, who went in and did nothing.”

In 1998, Al Qaeda struck the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more than two hundred people. In retaliation, Clinton signed a secret Presidential finding authorizing the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden. It was the first directive of this kind that Clarke had seen during his thirty years in government. Soon afterward, he told me, C.I.A. officials went to the White House and said they had “specific, predictive, actionable” intelligence that bin Laden would soon be attending a particular meeting, in a particular place. “It was a rare occurrence,” Clarke said. Clinton authorized a lethal attack. The target date, however—August 20, 1998—nearly coincided with Clinton’s deposition about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clarke said that he and other top national-security officials at the White House went to see Clinton to warn him that he would likely be accused of “wagging the dog” in order to distract the public from his political embarrassment. Clinton was enraged. “Don’t you fucking tell me about my political problems, or my personal problems,” Clinton said, according to Clarke. “You tell me about national security. Is it the right thing to do?” Clarke thought it was. “Then fucking do it,” Clinton told him.

There's more, read it... :)

---

From Think Progress, probably the best info I've yet found...and you can view the relevant clip of the interview there, too......

---

(right below the video, Think Progress adds this...)We fact-check Wallace’s claim that he asked Bush administration officials tough questions about their pre-9/11 efforts to combat terrorism here, here and here.

---

There's more, but suffice it to say the propagandists have been BUSTED!!!!! Clinton OWNED Wallace, hands down, and the facts back him up while exposing Wallace and Fox News and the right wing fruit loops for the spin-doctoring liars they are! Fox is having a cow, running around the internet trying to find any copies of the clip and have them removed, so I suggest you surf to Think Progress fast to see it if you've missed it, it's worth watching!

By Robert Parry
September 23, 2006

The United States is following the lead of “dirty war” nations, such as Argentina and Chile, in enacting what amounts to an amnesty law protecting U.S. government operatives, apparently up to and including President George W. Bush, who have committed or are responsible for human rights crimes.

While the focus of the current congressional debate has been on Bush’s demands to redefine torture and to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, the compromise legislation also would block prosecutions for violations already committed during the five-year-old “war on terror.”

The compromise legislation bars criminal or civil legal action over past violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, according to press reports. Common Article 3 outlaws “violence to life and person,” such as death and mutilation as well as cruel treatment and “outrages upon personal dignity.”

The legislation now before Congress also would prohibit detainees from citing the Geneva Conventions as a legal basis for challenging their imprisonment or for seeking civil damages for their mistreatment. [Washington Post, Sept. 22, 2006]

Since U.S. courts generally limit plaintiff status to people who have suffered definable harm, these provisions amount to a broad amnesty law for Bush and other administration officials who have engaged in human rights violations since the 9/11 attacks.

Given the scope of Common Article 3, covering abuses ranging from personal humiliations to death, the legislation could prevent – or at least severely complicate – any legal accountability in U.S. courts for officials who have committed these offenses.

Though administration officials have said these provisions are meant to protect CIA and other government operatives in the field, the provisions also could shield senior officials up the line of command who granted the authority for acts of torture and other abuses.

These implicated officials could include Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and administration legal advisers who supplied rationales for the abuses, as well as officials who signed off on the human rights violations, such as military commanders and President Bush.

'Dirty War' Precedents

In effect, this legislation could be interpreted as a broad amnesty law, like those enacted by legislatures in Argentina and Chile to give cover to government officials who waged “dirty wars” against leftists and other political opponents in the 1970s.

Because of those amnesty laws, many perpetrators of torture, “disappearances” and extrajudicial killings were spared punishment even after the grisly details of their crimes against humanity emerged from the secret records.

In some cases, the amnesty laws were later repealed or courts struck down some provisions. But the legal delays frustrated demands for justice from victims and often the aging perpetrators then cited infirmities to prevent ever being brought to trial.

For instance, Chile is still trying to untangle the amnesty protections that were used to shield dictator Augusto Pinochet from prosecution. Pinochet, who is now 90, has also employed the infirmity defense.

The legal delays have had political consequences, too, especially in the United States where complicit American officials escaped virtually all accountability, even to their reputations. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush Shields Dad on Chile Terrorism.”]

Some countries, such as South Africa, have combined amnesty for human rights violators with requirements that the guilty cooperate with truth commissions. That way, at least the historical record can be assembled and the crimes of state can be exposed as lessons for future generations.

The emerging U.S. amnesty law would be unusual in that it wouldn’t explicitly acknowledge that offenses had been committed, nor is the word “amnesty” used. Nor have there been public hearings in Congress to determine what the Bush administration might have done that requires amnesty.

Nevertheless, the legislation, which seems to be gaining bipartisan support, would create broad areas of legal protections for Bush and other human rights violators for past crimes. By also barring victims from seeking enforcement of the Geneva Conventions in U.S. courts, the bill would give the Bush administration wide latitude for future acts of abuse.

Yet, this troubling “amnesty” signpost – for an America rushing down a path marked by previous “dirty war” states – has been passed with barely a comment on its significance.

---

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'