TotallyOz

I hear there is a new Sheriff in town. No not the one from Bangkok. The one with a British accent and talks fast and writes even faster. Tall sophisticated guy with more stories than Muhammad Ali. I heard he was related to Cindy Adams and Michael Musto. But, I am not sure. Never got confirmation on that one. This is this what I heard let me be the first to tell you!

Same-sex marriage critic in court on lewdness charge in Oklahoma The lawyer for a former Baptist church leader who had spoken out against homosexuality said Thursday the minister has a constitutional right to solicit sex from an undercover policeman. The Reverend Lonnie W. Latham had supported a resolution calling on gays and lesbians to reject their ''sinful, destructive lifestyle'' before his January 3, 2006, arrest outside the Habana Inn in Oklahoma City. Authorities say he asked the undercover policeman to come up to his hotel for oral sex. For the full story go to: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid42264.asp

>Say it ain't so Oz. You, a first-generation iPhone guy? Yep. That is me. I can't wait! I am sure there will be some problems but Apple has always done right by me so it is worth the risk. Plus, I just love gadgets.

Here is a great story but hit the link for photos to see some of this guys pics. They are really great to see. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=364x1378921

By SIMON ROMERO Published: February 25, 2007 CARACAS, Venezuela, Feb. 24 — Venezuela’s arms spending has climbed to more than $4 billion in the past two years, transforming the nation into Latin America’s largest weapons buyer and placing it ahead of other major purchasers in international arms markets like Pakistan and Iran. Venezuelan military and government officials here say the arms acquisitions, which include dozens of fighter jets and attack helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles, are needed to circumvent a ban by the United States on sales of American weapons to the country. They also argue that Venezuela must strengthen its defenses to counter potential military aggression from the United States. “The United States has tried to paralyze our air power,” Gen. Alberto Muller Rojas, a member of President Hugo Chávez’s general staff, said in an interview, citing a recent effort by the Bush administration to prevent Venezuela from acquiring replacement parts for American F-16s bought in the 1980s. “We are feeling threatened and like any sovereign nation we are taking steps to strengthen our territorial defense,” he said. This retooling of Venezuela’s military strategy, which includes creation of a large civilian reserve force and military assistance to regional allies like Bolivia, has been part of a steadily deteriorating political relationship with the United States. The Bush administration has repeatedly denied that it has any plans to attack Venezuela, one of the largest sources of imported oil in the United States. But distrust of such statements persists here after the administration tacitly supported a coup that briefly removed Mr. Chávez from office in 2002. Venezuela’s escalation of arms spending, up 12.5 percent in 2006, has brought harsh criticism from the Bush administration, which says the buildup is a potentially destabilizing problem in South America and is far more than what would be needed for domestic defense alone. The spending has also touched off a fierce debate domestically about whether the country needs to be spending billions of dollars on imported weapons when poverty and a surging homicide rate remain glaring problems. Meanwhile, concern has increased among Venezuela’s neighbors that its arms purchases could upend regional power balances or lead to a new illicit trade in arms across Venezuela’s porous borders. José Sarney, the former Brazilian president and a leading senator, caused a stir this week when he was quoted in the Brazilian newspaper O Globo as describing Venezuela’s form of government as “military populism” and “a return to the 1950s,” when Venezuela was governed by the army strongman Marcos Pérez Jiménez. “Venezuela is buying arms that are not a threat to the United States but which unbalance forces within the continent,” Mr. Sarney said. “We cannot let Venezuela become a military power.” Still, officials in the administration of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil have been hesitant to publicly criticize Venezuela’s arms purchases. The issue remains delicate after the Brazilian company Embraer lost a deal to sell military aircraft to Venezuela because the planes included American technology. After turning unsuccessfully to Brazil and Spain for military aircraft, Venezuela has become one of the largest customers of Russia’s arms industry. Since 2005, Venezuela has signed contracts with Russia for 24 Sukhoi fighter jets, 50 transport and attack helicopters, and 100,000 assault rifles. Venezuela also has plans to open Latin America’s first Kalashnikov factory, to produce the Russian-designed rifles in the city of Maracay. A report in January by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency pegged Venezuela’s arms purchases in the past two years at $4.3 billion, ahead of Pakistan’s $3 billion and Iran’s $1.7 billion in that period. In a statement before the House Intelligence Committee, Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, called attention to Mr. Chávez’s “agenda to neutralize U.S. influence throughout the hemisphere,” contrasting Mr. Chávez with the “reformist left” exemplified by President Michelle Bachelet of Chile. Beyond Russia, Venezuela is also considering a venture with Iran, its closest ally outside Latin America, to build a remotely piloted patrol aircraft. Gen. Raúl Isaías Baduel, the Venezuelan defense minister, recently told reporters that the project to build 20 of the aircraft could be used to bolster border surveillance and combat environmental destruction in Venezuela. Venezuela is also strengthening military ties with Cuba, sending officers and soldiers there for training. Supporters of the arms buildup contend that under Mr. Chávez, who has been in power for eight years, Venezuela has spent proportionately less on its military in relation to the size of its economy than the United States or than other South American countries like Chile and Colombia. In 2004, the last year for which comparative data were immediately available and before Venezuela’s arms buildup intensified, overall defense spending by Venezuela, including arms contracts, was about $1.3 billion and accounted for about 1.4 percent of gross domestic product, compared with 4 percent in the United States and 3.8 percent in Colombia, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks military spending. Doubts persist as to how powerful Venezuela’s armed forces have become in a regional context, even as they acquire new arms. Military experts here say pilots in the air force still need training to start flying their new Russian fighters. And in terms of troop strength, Venezuela’s 34,000-soldier active-duty army still lags behind the armies of Argentina and Brazil, with about 41,400 and 200,000 members respectively, according to GlobalSecurity.org, a Web site that compiles data on military topics. Pro-Chávez analysts also say the president is less adventurous in relation to military policy outside Venezuela than predecessors like Luis Herrera Campíns, who supported Argentina in the Falklands War in 1982 to detract attention from a decline in oil revenue and climbing inflation. But critics of the arms purchases say they are being made with little participation from or discussion with the National Assembly, which recently allowed Mr. Chávez to govern by decree for 18 months. Ricardo Sucre, a political scientist at the Central University of Venezuela, said that the lack of transparency of the weapons contracts had heightened concern that Mr. Chávez could be arming parts of the army, the new civilian reserve and partisans like the Frente Francisco de Miranda, a pro-Chávez political group, that would be loyal to him in the event of fractures within the armed forces. General Muller Rojas, the president’s military adviser, said concern about the arms purchases was overblown, pointing to reports that Venezuela was considering an acquisition of nine diesel-powered submarines from Russia for about $3 billion. He said the navy had “aspirations” for more submarines, but that no “concrete plan” for such a large contract had been developed. “We simply have an interest in maintaining peace and stability,” General Muller Rojas said, describing the Caribbean as a crucial to its military influence. “We have no intent of using the Venezuelan armed forces to repress human rights.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/world/am...=rssnyt&emc=rss

These guys are the best. Great place to stay. Great comfort. Great atmosphere. Gay owned and operated. TotallyOz approved! http://pjs-place.com/

Here are some suggestions for hotels in the Pattaya area. Just an FYI: http://www.asian-accent.com/ http://www.ehotelbooking.com/thailand/patt...illas/index.htm http://www.thebondipattaya.com/ http://www.poseidon-pattaya.com/?en http://www.ambiance-pattaya.com/ http://www.flamingohotelthailand.com/ http://www.howards-pattaya.net/ http://www.caferoyale-pattaya.com/ http://www.rabbitresort.com/ http://www.gaythailand.com/index.php?file=accom_listing

Dick, I have been told by many friends that the saunas are great fun there but it all depends on when you go, the time of day, the day of the week, the month, etc. It cam be very hit or miss. My best friends from Germany always told me their best finds were in these saunas and they would find the boys that were not the Rio pros but the really sweet looking for a few bucks for the movie with a date kind of guys, but they would spend a month or two there each trip. If you are short on time and want the most bang for the bucks, you may want to take a boy down there with you and plan some extracurricular activities on the side.

Maybe we could have a >political version of American Idol where the candidates debate >for a period of time (to get longer each week as the >contestants are winnowed down) and everyone calls in to >vote..... I love that idea. I wonder if they would let a Jennifer Hudson slip through?

Glad you guys enjoyed the article! I appreciate the comments very much., >And all this time I thought your name was Madame bOyvary. Well, TY what ever do you mean?

Yes, they have a good site and is one of the sites I visit on a very regular basis. I have always wanted to go to Cuba and FloridaRob almost had me talked into it once but I didn't make it. It has really been a dream to go there and hope to be able to make the journey one day.

Cuba’s National Assembly of Popular Power has agreed to discuss making sex-reassignment surgery free of cost to all “transexuales” on the island who request it. The entire public health care system in Cuba is free of charge. Mariela Castro Espín, director of the National Center of Sexual Education (CENESEX), has led the move to make sex-reassignment available to Cubans free to all who seek it. Mariela Castro, a leader in her own right, is the daughter of renowned revolutionary leader Vilma Espín and acting Cuban President Raúl Castro. The newsletter Diversidad (Diversity) reported: “The measure would complement the present Identity Law that already acknowledges the right of citizens to change name and sexual identity. This places Cuba at the vanguard of the legislations that acknowledge the rights of transvestites, transsexuals and transgender in Latin America.” It places Cuba at the vanguard of legislations in North America, as well. Sex-reassignment is priced out of reach for many transsexual men and women in the U.S. And health care in general is a pricey privilege denied tens of millions in the heartland of imperialism. The publication reported that Cuba’s parliament will also discuss legislative recognition of same-sex unions. For an in-depth historical materialist look at the trajectory of the Cuban Revolution since 1959 on same-sex love and gender variance, read the Lavender & Red series at: www.workers.org. Look for the lavender and red logo. —Leslie Feinberg http://www.workers.org/2007/world/sex-change-0301/

The Stonewall Riots – also known as the Stonewall Rebellion – was perhaps the most important event ever to happen to the drag community. This was a series of events where all of our dragulous sisters stood up proud, supported each other and kicked some serious ass in defense of their rights to defend the liberty for then entire gay and lesbian community. In other words – sisters were doing it for themselves! In today’s world, gay bars and clubs are simply an accepted part of the gay community. Every city has taverns and discos that proudly sport rainbow flags and we take our rights to meet and mate for granted. But, it wasn’t always this easy. Up until the Stonewall Riots in the summer of 1969 police officers regularly raided gay bars – often locking up every single customer on “morals” charges. You didn’t even have to be blowing some stud in the bathroom – simply being in a gay bar was enough to get you thrown in the hoosegow. That year New York City Mayor John Lindsay was in a heated contest for re-election. In order to shore up the law and order vote he decided to “clean up” the city’s bars. So, in the early morning hour of June 28, he ordered the police to raid The Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village. The bar was packed with patrons that night, because the day earlier had been Judy Garland’s funeral – which had brought tens of thousands of gays from across America to New York City. A large percentage of the patrons were reportedly in drag – some were transgendered, others were diva and the rest were notorious queens. When the police entered the Stonewall Inn they began by prodding the customers with their nightsticks. This would turn out to be a fatal error. Refusing to be muscled out of the bar a transgendered drag queen, Sylvia Rivera freaked the fuck out and threw a beer bottle at the police. The cops then tried to attack her and the gay boys, lesbians and drag queens went nuts. They swarmed the cops, took their nightsticks and started beating up the homophobic NYPD Blue. The crowd then moved into the street and the police ran into the bar to hide and find safety while waiting for backup. At first, members of the crowd tried to set the bar on fire to burn the police alive. When they couldn’t get the building to burn, they instead broke off a parking meter and used it as a battering ram to get inside. In other words the queens were pissed as hell and not going to take it anymore! As this was going on gays, lesbians and drag queens from other bars in the neighborhood heard what was going on and came to the scene to help their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters with the fight. The police also called in backup – but not nearly enough. Within an hour there were 400 cops fighting with more than 2,000 angry gays, lesbians, divas, drag queens and transgendered people. Next the police called in their Tactical Control Force – otherwise known as a SWAT Team – but the rioters were quickly able to beat the elite police force into submission. By now Stonewall had become the site of an out and out melee that was quickly turning into a full scale riot. The police could not believe that they were being beaten into a pulp by a group of queers and drag queens. In the morning the scene quieted down and the police though it was all over. They were wrong. The next night the crowd returned again and started rioting one more time. Again the police were sent in to quell the rioters but again they lost. Although thousands of people were rioting, only 13 people were arrested – and many cops were sent to the hospital. After a third day of rioting the city decided to change its tactics and vowed to never raid gay bars again – the queers had won. This event is considered the opening of the modern gay rights movement. Later that month the Gay Liberation Front was formed to make sure that the police left our sisters alone. The following summer, on the anniversary of the riots, the Gay Liberation Front organized a march from the Stonewall Inn to Central Park. This was the first Gay Pride parade in New York City – and the queers have marched every year at the same time ever since. Unfortunately the riots did not help the Stonewall Inn itself. While it is probably the most famous gay landmark in the world, it remained closed during much of the 1970s and 1980s. In the late 1990s it reopened, but was then closed again a few years later when they lost their lease. New owners have purchased the building and plan to reopen the Stonewall Inn in 2007. No one knows exactly what it will be like – although the New York Observer has reported that it is expected to be “gorgeous.” We bet it will also be fagtastic, fagulous, fabulous, divalicious, dragtastic and utterly completely tabu-fabu! Maybe one day we’ll meet you there! Madame Ovary aka TotallyOz cc Drag.com 2007

I have had many friends go to the Thailand Detoxification clinics. Every single person that went had a great experience. They lost weight, felt healthier and were very impressed with the program. I am considering one of them for a week over the summer. I think I have decided on Spa Saumi but there are tons to choose from. Just do a google search for detox and Thailand and you will find tons of places. Has anyone seen these places outside of Thailand? Brazil maybe? How about Mexico? http://www.spasamui.com/

When I saw the IPhone at the Mac Conference I was really excited to see what they were doing. Yes, I'll be one of the first ones in line to get one and test it. I know the price is high but the device looks amazing and I can't wait to try it out. I have not had an wireless plan in years and always use the SIM Pay as you plans. But, I may have to sign up with Cingular just to try this one. Apple to advertise iPhone during Oscars By Jim Dalrymple Apple will use the Academy Awards show on Sunday to feature a new teaser advertisement focused on the iPhone, Macworld has learned. The new ad was described as being made for the Oscars, although no further details on the content of ad were available. The 79th Academy Awards telecast airs on ABC this Sunday at 8 p.m. Eastern. Last year, 38.9 million people watched the Oscars ceremony on ABC. Apple’s “1984” advertisement — shown nationally during the 1984 Super Bowl — introduced the Macintosh and remains one of the best-rated advertisements in history, in polls taken many times since then. The company has more recently focused its advertising on comparisons between Macs and PCs, using actors Justin Long (as the Mac) and John Hodgman (as the PC). Apple introduced the iPhone at Macworld Expo in January. While not yet released, the $499 smartphone has caused waves in the wireless market as analysts expect the demand for the touchscreen device to be very high. http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/02/23/ip....php?lsrc=mwrss

Anyone see the movie American Gun? It has just been offered on Itunes for Download and it has a great cast. Donald Sutherland Forest Whitaker Marcia Gay Harden Chris Marquette

The last election, I had friends who were very supportive of Dennis Kucinich. They were in NYC and a group of artist, models, escorts, etc. They were the most passionate group I had met about any candidate. They even stripped and made a photo with Kucinich bumper stickers on their backs. I sent it off to a few thousand people and they said that it spread from there. I understood their passion when I watched the guy speak. Perhaps more than most candidates, I do feel that he is honest and a straight talker. I am not sure he is a viable candidate. However, watch the link below and you will see why so many are drawn to him.

>If anything, this adminsitration will probably be remembered >best for assembling the Roberts Supreme Court, which has the >potential to be the most influential in the area of detainee >rights this century. I agree with you. I think the Court's makeup will have the most lasting effect on generations to come. But, I also think that the legacy of the Court will reflect poorly on the history of Bush. I said years ago that the last election was really about who is going to get to appoint the new justices to the Court. Unfortunately, most Americans do not see this as important enough to cast the right ballot.

I think it will be very interesting how history portrays this president and vice president. My main objection, other than my liberties being deprived over the years in office of these two guys, is that as a traveler around the world, I am ashamed to say I am American. Not only because of the reaction by others but honestly because of the possibility of harm from others. It was never like this 10 years ago. When I traveled, everyone opened their arms to Americans. Now, many people who once loved us hate us. I blame this not only on the guys in office but the entire government. I hope to see change but I don't see it soon and I am afraid that the repercussions of this administration will carry long after we are all gone.

Resolved, that Richard B. Cheney, vice president of the United States, should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that these articles of impeachment be submitted to the American people GQ, March 2007 When the Founding Fathers crafted the U.S. Constitution, they wanted to be sure that the president, vice president, and other ranking officials could be evicted more easily than the British monarchy. To ensure that the process would be swift and certain, they made it simple: Only two conditions must be met. First, a majority of the House of Representatives must agree on a set of charges; then, two-thirds of the Senate must agree to convict. After that, there is no legal wrangling, no appeal to a higher authority, no reversal on technical grounds. There is not even a limit on what the charges may be. As the Constitution describes it, the cause may be “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors,” but even these were left deliberately vague; as Gerald Ford once pointed out while still serving in the House of Representatives, the only real definition of an “impeachable offense” is “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” To the credit of this nation, despite the relative ease of impeachment, only seventeen officials have sunk to such ignominious depths that the process has been invoked. The reasons for impeachment have ranged from the outrageous to the banal: from putting political enemies in jail (Judge James H. Peck, 1830) to cheating on taxes (Judge Harry E. Claiborne, 1986); from being rude to Congress (“unmindful of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches,” President Andrew Johnson, 1868) to being a drunkard (“a man of loose morals and intemperate habits,” Judge John Pickering, 1803). One president was even impeached for having the good taste to keep his sex life private (concealing “the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee,” President William Jefferson Clinton, 1998). In the case of George W. Bush, there may be any number of reasons not to add an eighteenth name to the list. These range from the moderate (that two consecutive presidential impeachments would do more harm than good to the nation) to the provocative (that while Bush has been wrong about a staggering number of issues, he is too hapless to be held accountable for it) to the pragmatic (that even if Bush were impeached, we would still be stuck with Vice President Cheney). There is even, for those inclined to such things, an argument by design: that the president is the president, and therefore God designed it that way. But none of these apply to Vice President Cheney, and not only because it was Cheney (and not God, or George W. Bush, or anybody else) who selected himself as vice president back in 2000. With Cheney, there are also no lingering questions about capacity, motive, or malice. Over the past six years, as the country has spiraled into military misadventure, fiscal madness, and environmental meltdown, the vice president has not merely been wrong about the issues; he has been duplicitous, deceitful, and deliberately destructive to the American democracy. These things can no longer be denied by rational minds: That in the buildup to war in Iraq, the vice president, lacking confidence in the true casus belli, conspired to invent additional ones, misrepresenting the available intelligence, crafting new “intelligence,” and then spreading these falsehoods to the public, perverting the democratic process that he is sworn to uphold. That as the war devolved into occupation, the vice president again sabotaged the democratic system, developing back channels into the Coalition Provisional Authority, a body not under his purview, to remove some of the most effective staff and replace them with his own loyal supplicants—undercutting America’s best effort at war in order to expand his own power. That in his domestic capacity, the vice president has been equally reckless with the trust of his office, converting the vice presidency into a de facto prime ministership, conducting secret meetings with secret policy boards to determine national policy and then refusing to share the details of those meetings with the other branches of government. Finally, that the vice president has repeatedly promoted the interests of a corporation, Halliburton, over the interests of the nation, causing untold harm to American economic, military, and public health. For these and other offenses against the nation, Vice President Cheney, clearly, is guilty of crimes against the state. Herewith, in the absence of action for the past six years by a timid Republican Congress and a refusal to act by the new Democratic leadership, we, the Fourth Estate, take the mantle of indictment unto ourselves and present these Articles of Impeachment, to be adopted by the United States House of Representatives and voted upon by the United States Senate, at their earliest possible leisure: Resolved That Richard B. Cheney, vice president of the United States, be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors; that the evidence hereinafter set out sustains six articles of impeachment justifying immediate removal from office; that said articles shall be adopted by the House of Representatives; and that the same shall be endorsed by the Senate, to wit: ARTICLE I In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has deliberately obstructed the nation’s intelligence-gathering capacity, in that: (1) During the several months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president endeavored to bypass the role of the Central Intelligence Agency as the nation’s principal filter of raw intelligence, directing subordinates within the agency to “stovepipe” raw intelligence directly to his office. (2) As a result of this policy, the vice president became privy to unanalyzed, unverified data that should not have been available to him, including documents that seemed to indicate that Saddam Hussein may have attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger in February 1999. (3) Relying on these documents, and ignoring the CIA’s assessment that they were most likely fabrications, the vice president proceeded to publicize the Niger documents and encouraged the president to refer to them in his 2003 State of the Union address, deliberately obstructing the role of the CIA and promoting known forgeries to bolster his case for war. (4) At the same time, acting personally and through his subordinates, the vice president conspired with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to create a substitute intelligence agency within the Pentagon, known as the Office of Special Plans, with instructions to contradict unfavorable information emerging from the CIA. (5) Under this mandate, the Office of Special Plans sought to undermine the authority legally vested in the CIA, cultivating intelligence sources known to be discredited and embarking on extralegal “missions” to Iraq without consulting the nation’s legitimate intelligence services. (6) In these distortions of the nation’s intelligence-gathering process, the vice president, acting personally and through subordinates, has obstructed the democratic institutions of the nation and undermined the rule of law. In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. ARTICLE II Using the powers of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has personally deceived the American people, in that: (1) During the several months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, and thereafter, the vice president became aware that no certain evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a fact articulated in several official documents, including: (a) A report by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, concluding that “there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has—or will—establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” ( A National Intelligence Estimate, compiled by the nation’s intelligence agencies, admitting to “little speci?c information” about chemical weapons in Iraq. © A later section of the same NIE, admitting “low confidence” that Saddam Hussein “would engage in clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland,” and equally “low confidence” that he would “share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa’ida.” (d) An addendum by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, asserting that Hussein’s quest for yellowcake uranium in Africa was “highly dubious” and that his acquisition of certain machine parts, considered by some to be evidence of a nuclear program, were “not clearly linked to a nuclear end use.” (e) A report by the United States Department of Energy, stating that the machinery in question was “poorly suited” for nuclear use. (2) Despite these questions and uncertainties, and having full awareness of them, the vice president nevertheless proceeded to misrepresent the facts in his public statements, claiming that there was no doubt about the existence of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq and that a full-scale nuclear program was known to exist, including: (a) March 17, 2002: “We know they have biological and chemical weapons.” ( March 19, 2002: “We know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.” © March 24, 2002: “He is actively pursuing nuclear weapons.” (d) May 19, 2002: “We know he’s got chemical and biological…we know he’s working on nuclear.” (e) August 26, 2002: “We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons… Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” (f) March 16, 2003: “We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” (3) At the same time, despite overwhelming skepticism within the government of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda—resulting in the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission that “no credible evidence” for such a link existed, and the CIA’s determination that Hussein “did not have a relationship” with Al Qaeda—the vice president continued to insist that the relationship had been confirmed, including: (a) December 2, 2002: “His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.” ( January 30, 2003: “His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.” © March 16, 2003: “We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.” (d) September 14, 2003: “We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons.” (e) October 10, 2003: “He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda—providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.” (f) January 9, 2004: “Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services…have worked together on a number of occasions.” (g) January 22, 2004: “There’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government” (h) June 18, 2004: “There clearly was a relationship. It’s been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming.” (4) Through all of these misrepresentations, the vice president knowingly skewed the public’s perception of reality, clouded the nation’s ability to weigh evidence, and willfully disrupted the function of American democracy. In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. ARTICLE III In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has deliberately embraced and sheltered a known criminal, to the great detriment of American policy, in that: (1) During the months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president, acting personally and through his subordinates, granted special access to the Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi, relying on Chalabi for intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, despite an outstanding warrant for Chalabi’s arrest on charges of bank fraud in the nation of Jordan, grave concerns from the CIA about Chalabi’s credibility, and a 2002 British assessment that Chalabi was “a convicted fraudster.” (2) As the initial stage of the war concluded and Chalabi’s claims proved false, the vice president nevertheless continued privately to champion Chalabi as a leader for the new Iraqi government, ignoring a litany of troubling accusations and events, including: (a) May 19, 2004: The Department of Defense discontinues monthly payments to Chalabi, pending charges of fraud. ( May 20, 2004: U.S. troops, along with Iraqi forces, storm Chalabi’s home, seizing documents and computers for a criminal probe. © June 2004: The New York Times reports that Chalabi has disclosed U.S. secrets to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (3) When an employee of the Coalition Provisional Authority named Thomas Warrick voiced concerns about Chalabi to his superiors, the vice president intervened to demand that Warrick be fired, causing Warrick’s unique contributions to the occupation—including a series of prescient written warnings about the rise of insurgency—to be lost, and the nation’s ability to function at war compromised. (4) As late as November 2005, the vice president continued to offer public support and safe harbor to Chalabi, inviting him to visit the White House and providing personal welcome to a known criminal. In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. ARTICLE IV In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has maintained an improper and unethical relationship with his former employers at Halliburton and has promoted its agenda and interests over those of the American people, in that: (1) In September 2003, the vice president claimed to have “severed all my ties with the company” and to have “no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind,” where in truth he did, at that time, continue to earn more than $150,000 per year in delayed compensation from Halliburton, as well as a portfolio in excess of 230,000 stock options of the company, worth more than $10 million. (2) Bolstered by this economic incentive to promote the interests of Halliburton, the vice president did choose to remain silent as the company was exposed in a series of financial scandals at the expense of the American people, including: (a) February 2002: Halliburton is forced to pay $2 million after being charged by the Justice Department for fraud committed against the Pentagon during the vice president’s tenure as CEO. ( May 2002: The company is investigated by the SEC for fraudulent accounting practices and inflation of its stock price during the vice president’s tenure as CEO. © March 2003: The company is investigated by a congressional committee for receiving favorable contracts from the Pentagon, outside normal review processes. (d) May 2003: The company admits to having bribed a Nigerian official with millions of dollars in exchange for tax exemptions. (e) December 2003: The company is found by the Defense Contract Audit Agency, a unit of the Pentagon, to have overcharged and defrauded the government of more than $100 million. (f) January 2004: The company admits that its employees have accepted $6 million in kickbacks from a Kuwaiti company in exchange for a portion of U.S. government contracts. (3) Through his silence on these and other scandals involving his former employer and source of several million dollars in assets, the vice president exhibited not only a failure of leadership but a lack of integrity that has tarnished the office of the vice president. In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. ARTICLE V Using the powers of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has granted improper and unlawful influence over national policy to an anonymous cabal of corporate lobbyists, in that: (1) In January 2001, the vice president did oversee a secret task force composed of corporate lobbyists and executives from the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear-energy sector, known collectively as the National Energy Policy Development Group, instructing them to meet regularly and develop the nation’s energy policy. (2) By conducting these meetings in secret, the vice president did endeavor to impart influence to corporate interests without public knowledge, eclipsing not only the oversight function of Congress generally but the specific role of the energy committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. (3) During the course of these secret meetings, the vice president allowed lobbyists representing the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear-energy industries to compose, word-for-word, the national energy policy adopted by the Department of Energy, in gross violation of the public trust and all ethical norms. In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. ARTICLE VI In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: (1) On March 25, 2002, and thereafter, the vice president did willfully disobey court orders to identify the members of the National Energy Policy Development Group. (2) In September 2002, and prior thereto, the vice president did also refuse requests by Representatives Henry Waxman and John Dingell, as well as the Government Accountability Office, to release transcripts and papers produced by the aforementioned group. (3) In both of these cases, the requested names and documenting papers were deemed necessary to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to the vice president’s reliance on special interests and corporate lobbyists in the formation of national policy, and the release of said papers was ordered by the United States District Court and upheld by the United States Court of Appeals. (4) In refusing to produce said names, transcripts, and papers, and by continuing to keep the deliberations of the National Energy Policy Development Group secret, the vice president, substituting his judgment for the authority of the federal courts and ignoring the doctrine of congressional oversight, did assume to the office of the vice president authority, functions, and judgments forbidden by the United States Constitution. In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. Wil S. Hylton is a GQ correspondent.

He has given follow up statements to CBS News down in Florida that he still hates gays. http://cbs4.com/local/local_story_045205258.html

> you just have to look >realistically at your results and how big the file SHOULD be. My goodness Scott, I keep telling you it is not the size that is important it is what you do with it.

I have heard it was easy to pick up soldiers in Russia. However, it did not cross my mind this this was a forced organized system. http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/clickabi...sex.torture.cnn

This has been a great discussion but the thread is way too long. I am closing it. Please feel free to start a new one with additional information. Thanks. Oz

My goodness. He can eat my dog in one bite. Handsome dog Barry!