[from http://www.truthdig.com/report/item
the_crucifixion_of_tomas_young_20130310/]
. . . "(Thomas)Young will die for our sins. He will die for a war that should never have been fought. He will die for the lies of politicians. He will die for war profiteers. He will die for the careers of generals. He will die for a cheerleader press. He will die for a complacent public that made war possible. He bore all this upon his body. He was crucified. And there are hundreds of thousands of other crucified bodies like his in Baghdad and Kandahar and Peshawar and Walter Reed medical center. Mangled bodies and corpses, broken dreams, unending grief, betrayal, corporate profit, these are the true products of war. Tomas Young is the face of war they do not want you to see. . . "
Yet Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld are free, and wealthy men.
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
. . . of gray? Not in Mitt Romney's (and his current defenders') world. . .
After seeing the photo of Libyans holding a sign stating that "Chris Stevens was a friend to all Libyans", I decided to change tack a bit.
If you want to have a tough-talking, take-no prisoners, shoot-from-the-hip, show-no-mercy-type of president, vote for Mitt Romney.
If you prefer a rational, sympathetic, empathetic, thorough, fact-loving, humanitarian, logical, intelligent and reasonable president, DON'T.
====================================================================
(from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/mitt-romney-consulate-attack_n_1875906.html)
The Romney campaign's statement seemed to be an attempt to capitalize
on the appearance that the Obama administration -- which has overseen
the Arab Spring, and the rise of Islamist governments in both Egypt and
Libya -- was capitulating to the sensitivities of an unruly Muslim
crowd, rather than backing the right of an American citizen to release a
disrespectful film.
But
the statement criticized by the Romney campaign came early in the day,
before the attacks on the two embassies, and was put out not by the
White House, but by the Cairo embassy itself.
The White House later disavowed the statement as not approved by Washington, according to a senior administration official speaking to Politico.
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt also commented on the statement
from the Romney campaign. “We are shocked that, at a time when the
United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our
diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a
political attack,” LaBolt said in a statement.
(from http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/cnn-sort-of-calls-out-mitt-romney-and-newt-gingrich-for-lying-and-politicizing-libya-tragedy/)
CNN’s Brooke Baldwin and John Berman did an excellent job of keeping
the facts straight as they interviewed former Speaker Gingrich on the
subject, no mean feat given Gingrich’s comical contempt for facts. Early
in the interview, Gingrich opined that the protests in Libya and Egypt
were the result of “collusion and a fair amount of planning,” which may
or may not turn out to be true, but which there is no evidence of. When
Berman asked the Speaker “Do you have any proof that there is a
connection right now?” Gingrich prefaced his response with a long,
derisive laugh that tells you everything you need to know about the
former Speaker and Romney surrogate’s regard for facts.
“Look, I don’t have access to the NSA listening devices,” Gingrich responded.
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
. . . want to reconsider if this is YOUR current candidate of choice. . .
(from Michael Cohen guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 June 2012 13.31 EDT) "Granted, presidential candidates are no strangers to disingenuous or overstated claims; it's pretty much endemic to the business. But (Mitt) Romney is doing something very different and far more pernicious. Quite simply, the United States has never been witness to a presidential candidate, in modern American history, who lies as frequently, as flagrantly and as brazenly as Mitt Romney. . . In fact, lying is really the only appropriate word to use here, because, well, Romney lies a lot. . .
In his book, appropriately titled "No Apologies", Romney argues the following: "Never before in American history has its president gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined. It is his way of signaling to foreign countries and foreign leaders that their dislike for America is something he understands and that is, at least in part, understandable." Nothing about this sentence is true.
President Obama never went around the world and apologized for America – and yet, even after multiple news organizations have pointed out this is a "pants on fire" lie, Romney keeps making it. Indeed, the "Obama apology tour", along with the president bowing down to the King of Saudi Arabia, are practically the lodestars of the GOP's criticism of Obama's foreign policy performance (the Saudi thing isn't true either).
The economy is really where the truth takes its greatest vacation in Romney world. First, there is Romney's claim that the 2009 stimulus passed by Congress and signed by President Obama "didn't work". According to Romney, "that stimulus didn't put more private-sector people to work." While one can quibble over whether the stimulus went far enough, the idea that it didn't create private-sector jobs has no relationship to reality. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus bill created more than 3m jobs – a view shared by 80% of economists polled by the Chicago Booth School of Business (only 4% disagree).
And the list goes on. Romney has accused Obama of raising taxes – in reality, they've gone down under his presidency, and largely because of that stimulus bill that Romney loves to criticize. . .
Then, there is the recent Romney nugget that the Obama administration passed Obamacare with the full knowledge that it "would slow down the economic recovery in this country" and that the White House "knew that before they passed it". It's an argument so clearly spun from whole cloth that according to Jonathan Chait, the acerbic political columnist for New York Magazine, Romney is "Just Making Stuff Up Now". . .
This is perhaps the most interesting and disturbing element of Romney's tireless obfuscation: that even when corrected, it has little impact on the presumptive GOP nominee's behavior. This is happening at a time when fact-checking operations in major media outlets have increased significantly, yet that appears to have no effect on the Romney campaign.
What is the proper response when, even after it's pointed out that the candidate is not telling the truth, he keeps doing it? Romney actually has a telling rejoinder for this. When a reporter challenged his oft-stated assertion that President Obama had made the economy worse (factually, not correct), he denied ever saying it in the first place. It's a lie on top of a lie. . . "
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
