Murtha or Bush on Iraq? : Miami IMC

Congressman Murtha, who actually served with distinction, sees the National interest being preserved by letting the Iraqis settle their own differences, Bush who didn't serve, is seeing the international interests as his own, and letting America be destroyed from its enimies within.IMPEACH!
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames/allcomments?pid=69707&r...

Congressman Murtha from Pennsylvania has our National interest in mind. We do not need to fight Israel's wars.
We need to impeach this Traitor Bush for collaborating with Enimies within and without who are hell bent on destroying America.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3891535120990840079&q=who+controls+the+world

This is a must see Video, explaining Bilderberg, Council of Foreign relations, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the roots of our problems.

http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/3996.php
Formation of the Military industrial Dictatorship

http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2006/03/252267.shtml
SCHOLARS AFFIRM CHENEY COMPLICITY IN 9/11:update

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/03/335923.shtml
SCHOLARS AFFIRM CHENEY COMPLICITY IN 9/11.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848
Loose Change This Video clearly shows the physical evidence of 911 that is contradictory to the Official Version of 911.

Article Free Money
http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/3680.php

older articles:
http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/37426/index.php

Stop the Octopus Israel now!
http://www.vaticanassassins.org/pope_fed.htm.

Breaking News: Helen Thomas who had to cover her mouth four times in the questions with President Bush today, said to Wolf Blitzer, what was the real reason we Invaded Iraq, and actually mentioned we all know, the necoconservatives, in Rebuilding America's Defenses, had planned its invasion before Bush came into the Presidency, There was no connection between Al Queda and Iraq, but the American people believed so

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3891535120990840079&q=who+contro ls+the+world

http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/3996.php

http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2006/03/252267.shtml SCHOLARS AFFIRM CHENEY COMPLICITY IN 9/11:update

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/03/335923.shtml SCHOLARS AFFIRM CHENEY COMPLICITY IN 9/11.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848 Loose Change This Video clearly shows the physical evidence of 911 that is contradictory to the Official Version of 911.

Article Free Money http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/3680.php

She was highly critical of the Media which has failed to ask the questions. 2/21 /06

P.S. saw Rove hide his moth too. America do you read body language?

Wayne Madsen reports today:

"March 21, 2006 -- Political observers in Washington are wondering why, a day after taking some unscreened questions from an audience in Cleveland and appearing unprepared to answer them, President Bush held an unscheduled press conference at the White House -- a rarity with this administration. White House handlers even allowed veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas to ask Bush a question, something that has been carefully avoided in past Bush news conferences.

THOMAS: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President -- your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime.

Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, your Cabinet officers, former Cabinet officers, intelligence people and so forth -- but what's your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil, the quest for oil. It hasn't been Israel or anything else. What was it?

BUSH: I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- that I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect.

QUESTION: And... [Thomas' microphone was then cut off, not permitting the normal follow-up question].

Bush, both in Cleveland and at the White House press conference, was confused, flustered, and typically not well-spoken. These self-inflicted poor public relations demonstrations come at a time when Bush's poll numbers are plummeting. Some informed sources speculate that Bush's top handler, Karl Rove, has other things to worry about these days than ensuring Bush avoids tough questions and keeps to his talking points. There are strong indications that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is about to drop another major indictment in the CIA leak case.

Bush being pushed out to the public without special handling: Is Rove pre-occupied with other matters?"

Maybe Wayne didn't see the brief interview with Wolf Blitzer around 5:00 p.m. Breaking News: Helen Thomas who had to cover her mouth four times in the questions with President Bush today, said to Wolf Blitzer, what was the real reason we Invaded Iraq, and actually mentioned "we all know, the neoconservatives, in Rebuilding America's Defenses, had planned its invasion before Bush came into the Presidency, There was no connection between Al Queda and Iraq, but the American people believed so "

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3891535120990840079&q=who+controls+the+world

http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/3996.php
Murtha or Bush on Iraq

http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2006/03/252267.shtml
SCHOLARS AFFIRM CHENEY COMPLICITY IN 9/11:update

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/03/335923.shtml
SCHOLARS AFFIRM CHENEY COMPLICITY IN 9/11.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848
Loose Change This Video clearly shows the physical evidence of 911 that is contradictory to the Official Version of 911.

Article Free Money
http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/3680.php

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/21/sitroom.02.html

BLITZER: So what do you think...

THOMAS: I wasn't -- I wasn't surprised that he didn't call on me.

BLITZER: What do you think happened today? Why do you think -- I know you were in the Gridiron. I was at that dinner. And you did a nice performance, skits, and you were -- you know, satirical skits on the president, the vice president, and everybody else.

THOMAS: Yes.

BLITZER: And you did an excellent job, as you always do, singing and dancing. But what happened? What do you think happened?

THOMAS: Well, I think -- I think we smoked a peace pipe. I think that, you know, there's a different rapport now, which is good.

BLITZER: Did you talk to him privately or something? Did you meet him?

THOMAS: No, not really. But I sort of felt bad for the things that I had said that were not supposed to be -- I sort of apologized.

BLITZER: You did.

THOMAS: Yes.

BLITZER: All right. So he called on you today...

THOMAS: And very nice of him to call on me.

BLITZER: And you asked him a tough question. Did you accept his answer? Namely, that he didn't come into the presidency believing he was going to go to war against Saddam Hussein, but after 9/11 his world view changed?

THOMAS: It doesn't -- it doesn't parse. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it certainly had -- was secular, it was not tied to al Qaeda.

I think he wanted to go into Iraq because he had all the neo- conservatives advising at the top of their agenda for Project for a New American Century. First Iraq, then Iran -- then Syria, then Iran, and so forth.

BLITZER: So you believe even before 9/11, he was about -- he wanted to take out Saddam Hussein? THOMAS: Oh, I think this is very clear. You couldn't sit in that press room day after day. Every time -- every time it was mentioned by Ari Fleischer or Scott, they would say in one breath, 9/11, Saddam Hussein, 9/11, Saddam Hussein.

I don't -- I don't blame the American public for thinking there was a tie.

BLITZER: So you don't accept his answer today? You think, what, he was still spinning? Is that what you're suggesting?

THOMAS: It wasn't that. I think maybe in his own mind he didn't, but I think that everybody knows, everybody who was in the know, knows that Iraq was on target, it was on the radar screen from the moment he came into office. The Treasury secretary says it, people in CIA say it, and so forth .

Nothing would deter him. It was a very big goal.

BLITZER: You're thinking of Paul O'Neill, the former Treasury secretary.

THOMAS: Yes.

BLITZER: Richard Clarke, who was one of the counterterrorist advisers...

THOMAS: Right.

BLITZER: ... who have made those kinds of suggestions.

Let's go back to this issue, being the worst president ever. And you've covered a lot of presidents, going back to President Kennedy.

Worse than Richard Nixon?

THOMAS: Well, I think what this president has done is really strike a match to the tinderbox that we all know is the Middle East. And I think that Nixon's crime, so-called, was the abuse of government power.

In the case, in the case of the president and his cohorts, I think they have really spread war throughout the Middle East. They have really encouraged all of the horror that is going on.

We have killed so many innocent people. I mean...

BLITZER: But you can't forget 9/11. Three thousand people were killed.

THOMAS: But the Iraqis didn't do it. I mean, how can you -- why don't you go bomb some other country? I mean, if you have no reason -- this is -- I don't believe in preemptive war, and it certainly is against international law. It's against the U.N. charter, it's against Geneva, and it's against Nuremberg. BLITZER: Tell our viewers, who, as I said earlier, have grown up with you, Helen, what you're up to nowadays, how you feel, what your goals are right now.

THOMAS: My goals are to seek the truth, wherever it leads me. And I do think that's the goal of journalists, and I think we fell down on the job.

Get a transcript of Lou Dobbs interview tonight
Best Government Money Can Buy

The IRS wants to allow tax-preparation companies to sell your information. We'll tell you why.

Then, the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus joins us to discuss the Catholic Church's position on illegal immigration.

And, the authors of "Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq" join us. " CNN

Catholic Church supports civil disobediance on immigration.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/22/ldt.01.html
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Lou. Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton, raising some eyebrows by bringing religion into the fight over immigration. I'll talk with the Senate minority leader Harry Reid about our porous borders. He's on the front lines of this debate, right now he's in southern California along the border with Mexico.

Also, outrage over a man in Afghanistan who converted from Islam to Christianity. Could he now be put to death for changing his religion in Afghanistan?

And street wars. It's not a video game, it's a real game players act now the public. The objective? Eliminate your opponent before you're eliminate. We'll show you what's going on. All of that coming up, Lou.

DOBBS: Wolf, we're looking forward to it. I know you're looking forward to continuing what we hope is a very happy birthday. Happy birthday, partner.

BLITZER: Hey, thanks very much, Lou.

DOBBS: All the best.

BLITZER: Thank you. As Wolf just mentioned, Senator Hillary Clinton tonight, voicing her opposition to tough border security legislation that's now under debate on Capitol Hill.

Meanwhile, Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles, the leader of the largest Catholic diocese in this country, says worshipers should break the law, if necessary, to help illegal aliens in this tough -- if this tough border legislation is passed.

Joining me now to talk about God and politics, the Catholic Church and illegal immigration is Father Richard Neuhaus. He's founder the Institute for Religion and Public Life, and Father, it's good to have you here.

FATHER RICHARD NEUHAUS, INST. FOR RELIGION & PUBLIC LIFE: Good to be with you, Lou. DOBBS: The idea that the Catholic Church would, through in the person of the Bishop's Conference and Cardinal Mahoney, inject itself so vigorously and really call for basically civil disobedience is remarkable.

NEUHAUS: Well, the New York Times editorial page lauded him for his courage for introducing important moral considerations into this public policy issue.

DOBBS: What are the moral considerations if one names a specific piece of legislation, as the cardinal did. And calls for, first the rejection of the legislation, specifically, and calls for disobedience?

NEUHAUS: Yes. I think the language of civil disobedience was unfortunate. But you have to make a clear distinction between pastoral care on the one hand, which is the substantive issue that the cardinal was pushing, and on which he's right. The church cannot become a instrument of the law enforcement of the criminal justice system.

DOBBS: Should government become an instrument of the church?

NEUHAUS: No, no. The pastoral care is one thing, public policy is another thing. Now on pastoral care, the church's religious freedom is inviolable.

That means you serve everybody and you don't ask whether they're legal or illegal or whatever else the problems may be, you respond to the problems that are presented to you, because you simply are the church. Public policy, you're right. You get into a dicey area. But it's not simply limited to the Catholic Church and certainly not to this immigration policy.

DOBBS: No it's not.

NEUHAUS: It's whenever religious leaders use their authority in a way that seems to be suggesting that those who disagree with a particular position are somehow out of sync with the teachings of church. Then you begin to get problems, unless your really dealing with something like abortion, euthanasia, where you do have solid teaching of the church. But on immigration policy, obviously people of equal intelligence and goodwill can very strongly disagree, and do.

DOBBS: Vigorously. That's where we are right now in this time.

NEUHAUS: Of course.

DOBBS: But also we're talking about an issue that is broader even than illegal immigration. That is, the relationship between religion and government, God and politics. And frankly we're at a time, I will tell you, Father, I'm a very nervous American.

I believe in a separation of church and state. Millions of other Americans do, and The Constitution that seems to get in the way of a lot of people in this country insists upon it. And it is a two-way relationship. And it becomes very difficult to see how we can defend that separation if we permit an intrusion on the part the church into public policy.

Because we're watching -- not only Catholics, I want to be clear. We have evangelicals who are apparently influencing this administration strongly, reaching to the hearts, minds, and souls of some of our Congressional people as well.

NEUHAUS: But Lou, the separation of Church and state never meant, and cannot mean and never will mean the separation of religion from politics. Religion is basically those deepest commanding truths, those moral principles. It's not all that religion is, but it is certainly that, which you bring to bear in making political judgments and arguments. So the alternative is, and this is the argument of --

DOBBS: I have no problem.

NEUHAUS: The alternative is the naked public square. The alternative is a political process in which you say to certain people, because their deepest convictions are religiously grounded, you say oh you cannot bring your deep moral convictions into the debate.

DOBBS: I would want anyone to bring who they are into the debate.

NEUHAUS: Exactly.

DOBBS: Whether it be their religion, their spiritual beliefs.

NEUHAUS: Their political philosophy. Their, whatever, sure.

DOBBS: But when we take a personal system of religious beliefs and it becomes the foundation of public policy, it seems to me, when we're excited about whether a James Dobson likes a Supreme Court candidate or doesn't, whether the Catholic Church wants to bring 20 million additional adherents into its American church, while tolerating poverty in Mexico and Central America, then maybe we should all be discussing how the Catholic Church is conducting itself in social and governmental and political issues.

NEUHAUS: Let's not discuss it in terms of church state separation. Whether it be Jim Dobson or whether it be Cardinal Mahoney. The discussion is not --

DOBBS: I'll defer to you.

NEUHAUS: The discussion is not about church state separation. The discussion is an honest disagreement in which religious leaders, as much as everybody else, as citizens, participate in the deliberation and decision-making process in the public square. So the fact is, that you disagree.

DOBBS: No, I don't disagree. I'm out of time. I do disagree as well, but I'm more out of time than disagreeing. I hope you will come back soon and we'll continue the discussion.

NEUHAUS: Always a pleasure.

DOBBS: Appreciate it. Father Richard Neuhaus, thank you."

Commentary: " Meanwhile, Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles, the leader of the largest Catholic diocese in this country, says worshipers should break the law, if necessary, to help illegal aliens in this tough -- if this tough border legislation is passed."

and Lou Dobbs says: "But when we take a personal system of religious beliefs and it becomes the foundation of public policy, it seems to me, when we're excited about whether a James Dobson likes a Supreme Court candidate or doesn't, whether the Catholic Church wants to bring 20 million additional adherents into its American church, while tolerating poverty in Mexico and Central America, then maybe we should all be discussing how the Catholic Church is conducting itself in social and governmental and political issues"

So why is the Catholic Church Tax exempt?