Tuesday, February 20, 2007

HELP OUR VETERANS!!


Is this how the president "supports the troops?" Our veteran outpatients, our wounded soldiers are shoved off into rat-infested, mold-ridden tenements?!! And they are afraid to speak out? This is a moral imperative. If we can't help our wounded valiant soldiers, home from the battlefield — who have lost legs, arms and brain matter all for Bush's evil war, then how on earth can we call ourselves a civilized nation?

The good news is this: because of two brave journalists, the veterans are being moved immediately, and changes are happening fast.

Dana Priest On Walter Reed Army Medical Center: An ‘Unbelievable’ Story of ‘Neglect’ and ‘Indifference’

Dana Priest and Anne Hull of the Washington Post revealed over the weekend that Walter Reed hospital, once perceived as the “crown jewel of military medicine,” has become “something else entirely — a holding ground for physically and psychologically damaged outpatients.” Priest and Hull snuck in and out of the Walter Reed facilities over the course of four months without the knowledge or permission of hospital officials. They said they wanted to bypass the hospital’s “very well-oiled public relations machine.” Some examples of what they saw:

– The “legions” of injured soldiers housed at the facility “take up every available bed on post and spill into dozens of nearby hotels and apartments leased by the Army.”

– Building 18 “has been plagued with mold, leaky plumbing and a broken elevator.”

– “The wounded manage other wounded. Soldiers dealing with psychological disorders of their own have been put in charge of others at risk of suicide.”

Next year, the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system expects to treat 263,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, a number three times what the VA initially projected. "The number of veterans coming into the VA health care system has been rising by about five percent a year, as the number of people returning from Iraq with illnesses or injuries keeps rising." President Bush has promised that our nation would "keep its commitments to those who have risked their lives for our freedom." "We owe them all we can give them," Bush said after a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. "Not only for when they're in harm's way, but when they come home to help them adjust if they have wounds, or help them adjust after their time in service."

The Washington Post reported Saturday that staffers responsible for managing outpatients at Walter Reed have had caseloads of more than 125 patients each. Recovering soldiers face bureaucratic delays, overworked case managers and appalling living conditions, including black mold, cheap mattresses and cockroaches.

"This news is an absolute outrage. And it's shameful. It is absolutely inexcusable that our wounded troops are coming home to such an unprepared and overwhelmed health care system (and please note, Walter Reed is not even a VA facility). Responsibility for this tragedy goes straight to the top. We at IAVA are demanding swift action from the President, Department of Defense and Congress to correct these problems. It is disgraceful that our country has sent troops to war without ensuring adequate care for the wounded."

OPEN THREAD

165 comments:

  1. Just once I'd like to see Bush show some real concern. Hell even some fake concern would be better than his perpetual apathy.

    Do you think he even wonders about these guys as he lies down between his expensive silk sheets in his beautifully decorated bed chamber?

    Do you think he even gives a crap?

    If he had anything, and I do mean "anything", that even resembled goodness or decency, he'd have the secret service drive him over to Walter Reed, (15 minute ride)with hot food, blankets, and a lot of carpenters and plumbers and electricians, to fix that place up and keep them comfortable while they're doing it.

    Imagine the photo op! Bush standing there in blue jeans handing out food or blankets to these veterans, or doing some repair work. Imagine the surge he'd get in the polls to be seen this way. If he'd just "look" like it bothered him, and he wanted to do something about it, imagine what it could do for him.

    I have many complaints with George W. Bush as President over me and my country, but the number one problem I have with Mr Bush, is that he just doesn't care.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And for a leader, apathy is the worst trait to possess.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Blair to announce Iraq withdrawal plan

    9 minutes ago
    LONDON

    Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce on Wednesday a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks, the BBC reported.

    Blair will also tell the House of Commons during his regular weekly appearance that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient, the British Broadcasting Corp. said, quoting government officials who weren't further identified.

    The announcement comes even as President Bush implements a surge of 21,000 more troops for Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You know, Bush will just call them "cut-n-runners", but the irony here is that England really does know when to "cut-n-run".

    Cut of course refers to cutting your losses, something England did during our own revolution. We didn't "beat" England. We just outlasted them.

    We fought small skirmishes, losing almost every one, our soldiers blending back into the population and farm lands after a quick afternoon surprise attack.

    We didn't "beat" the British. They were fully capable of continuing the war, however they decided it was "too costly", both in British lives and pounds. So they decided to pull out, and strike up a working international relationship with us, for commerce and trade.


    But the real irony is here, is that this is exactly how the Iraqi people are "beating" us. They aren't beating us. They're just going to outlast us. In the end, just like England did 200 years ago, we will decide it is too costly, as you cannot control a people who demand on defining their own destiny.

    In fact, one might say the Iraqi people are fighting for their freedom. Because freedom is not a given form of government.

    Freedom is the government that a given group of people, choose for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's an abomination. "Support the Troops" is just a rally call for Bush Usefools.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you Worf and Human. I just heard an amazing interview of Scott Ritter by Randi Rhodes.

    He recently visited Iran, talked to people everywhere. The people of Iran are amazingly well educated, secular, democratic, diverse ... only a tiny fringe element are America-hating violent Islamic religious fundamentalists

    The bush regime would like us to think differently. So they can bomb them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If Bush has his way they will all soon hate us.

    I don't know why everyone can't see that Bush has made us so much more unsafe than we ever were before.

    He has single handedly taken the US from one of the most BELOVED countries in the world, to the most hated.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We have so many more new enemies than we ever did before 911, thanks to Bush and Cheney.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Like the old ones weren't enough...


    :|

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, at least England finally decided to cut their losses tonight. I think they probably decided to kill two birds with one stone.

    Iraq was a dead weight around their neck, and with Prince Harry now boasting that he wants to go, Tony Blair probably just decided to screw Bush and solve the Harry crisis in one shot.

    Bring his troops home, end the problem with the war, and then they don't have to tell Harry he can't go.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous4:45 PM

    Yes we have more enemies than ever. what's going on in afghanistan? why the ramp up?

    ReplyDelete
  12. We need to help our disabled veterans on two fronts. First of course, they need better facilities, more staffing, more care. At the other end, prevention is the best way to cure overcrowding. If we stop producing wounded soldiers, it will ease some strain on the system.

    ReplyDelete
  13. We need to save them from George Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What Would You Do If Bush Declared Martial Law?

    Jane Smiley
    HuffingtonPost.Com

    An editorial in the New York Times yesterday pointed out, for those of us who didn't realize it, that the Bush administration had inserted two provisions into last October's defense budget bill that would make it easier to declare martial law in the US. Senators Leahy and Bond have introduced a bill to repeal these changes, and it is important that voters keep track of this bill and hold their Congresspeople to account on it.

    Along with several other measures the Bush adminstration has proposed, the introduction of these changes amounts, not to an attack on the Congress and the balance of power, but to a particular and concerted attack on the citizens of the nation. Bush is laying the legal groundwork to repeal even the appearance of democracy

    ReplyDelete
  15. the Bush administration had inserted two provisions into last October's defense budget bill that would make it easier to declare martial law in the US


    We all need to be saved from Bush.

    :|

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is truly scary Worf. I am hearing things also that you won't believe! Bush has also quietly taken all the government departments: Health, Environment, Education and substituted his own political hacks in place of qualified people. He did this with "executive orders" signed by him, the Fuhrer.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Its just like Germany pre Nazi era.

    The question is will we, like the German people, be remembered for our naivity and passivity, in allowing a tyrant to rise to power?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Maxmixt7:53 PM

    I tried posting several times and couldn't. will try again.

    with the democrats in power, does anyone think it's possible that GW will invade Iran or launch a first strike?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Worf said "Just once I'd like to see Bush show some real concern. Hell even some fake concern would be better than his perpetual apathy.

    Do you think he even wonders about these guys as he lies down between his expensive silk sheets in his beautifully decorated bed chamber?

    Do you think he even gives a crap?"


    honestly, no I dont think this slug of a man gives a rasts ass about anyone or anything other than what he wants.

    Bush thinks he is a god that should be worshipped and obeyed, the only gods GWB remotely resembles are the Roman god of war and the god of the dead.

    Because he worships war and death, its the air he breaths.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Remember how a year or two ago Bush and his Pack of Reich Wing fools were saying that liberals dont support the troops and liberals are traitors, where are GWB and his phony patriotic supporters like FF and TT now.

    Where is their outrage, FF claims he was a soldier, yet he is hiding rather than showing outrage at how the veterans are being treated, looks like FF puts being a Neo Con, above being a soldier or an American.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have watched phony patriots like TT and FF and Rusty state how patriotic they are and how they support veterans yet while talking out of the other side of their mouth on Veterans Day yet some of them wish a soldier fighting over in Iraq dead, wish a veteran dead and state they dont feel they should have to support a a disabled veteran whose opinions and political views do not agree with their own.

    So in reality they DONT support the soldiers or veterans, freedom of speech or the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Worf said "You know, Bush will just call them "cut-n-runners", but the irony here is that England really does know when to "cut-n-run".

    Cut of course refers to cutting your losses, something England did during our own revolution. We didn't "beat" England. We just outlasted them.

    We fought small skirmishes, losing almost every one, our soldiers blending back into the population and farm lands after a quick afternoon surprise attack.

    We didn't "beat" the British. They were fully capable of continuing the war, however they decided it was "too costly", both in British lives and pounds. So they decided to pull out, and strike up a working international relationship with us, for commerce and trade.


    But the real irony is here, is that this is exactly how the Iraqi people are "beating" us. They aren't beating us. They're just going to outlast us. In the end, just like England did 200 years ago, we will decide it is too costly, as you cannot control a people who demand on defining their own destiny.

    In fact, one might say the Iraqi people are fighting for their freedom. Because freedom is not a given form of government.

    Freedom is the government that a given group of people, choose for themselves."


    EXCELLENT Post, Blair is smarter than bush and knows when to cut his losses, and your analogy between the insurgency and the way we fought the bristish is spot on as well, the only difference being they are fighting a civil war as well ass fighting us.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Lydia said "Thank you Worf and Human. I just heard an amazing interview of Scott Ritter by Randi Rhodes.

    He recently visited Iran, talked to people everywhere. The people of Iran are amazingly well educated, secular, democratic, diverse ... only a tiny fringe element are America-hating violent Islamic religious fundamentalists

    The bush regime would like us to think differently. So they can bomb them."

    Same strategy he used to invade Iraq and same strategy Hitler used, dehumanizing the enemy and stirring up fear and hatred........you know the we have to attack them mbefore there's a Mushroom cloud over New York, or we need to fight them there rather than fight them here.......Its all fear mongering and war mongering BS.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Worf said "the Bush administration had inserted two provisions into last October's defense budget bill that would make it easier to declare martial law in the US


    We all need to be saved from Bush."


    I've been talking about this alot lately too, I think Bush may want to attack Iran SPECIFICALLY so he can declare martial law and remain in power and avoid any impeachments, charges of treason or constraints on his power.

    Think about it, if he attacks Iran and oil spikes to $200 a barrel, and gas is $10 a gallon and we have mass enemplpyment, rioting, and another Great Depression, the chaos could be the smoke screen Bush needs to declare martial law and seize ultimate power and become a true dictator like Him and Cheney have wanted all along.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lydia said "This is truly scary Worf. I am hearing things also that you won't believe! Bush has also quietly taken all the government departments: Health, Environment, Education and substituted his own political hacks in place of qualified people. He did this with "executive orders" signed by him, the Fuhrer."

    Your right, the roots of fascism run deep and have grown strong indeed.

    We NEED this Congress to step up and do what we elected them to do, repeal, all Bush's unconstitutional laws and programs, end the war, get rid of his imcompetent blindly loyal partisan appointees and impeach Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, et al and restore America to a Constitutional democracy rather than a fascist crime empire.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Maxmixt10:06 PM

    We really must impeach bush. He has signed over 700 "signing statements" to preempt any laws the Dem Congress tries to pass.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Now keep in mind Bush says he needs to spy on our phone calls and our financial transactions to catch and fight the terrorists, I believe he also said that any person or organization harboring, associating or doing business with terrorists is a terrorist by association..................Keep that in mind after reading the next post.

    ReplyDelete
  28. So by GWB's definition, The National Republican Senatorial Committee is a Terrorist Organization...........BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


    GOP Donor Hit With Terror Charges
    
Tuesday February 20, 2007 9:01 PM

    WASHINGTON (AP) - A New York man accused of trying to help terrorists in Afghanistan has donated some $15,000 to the House Republicans' campaign committee over three years.
    Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari pleaded not guilty Friday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan to charges that include terrorism financing, material support of terrorism and money laundering.
    From April 2002 until August 2004, the man also known as ``Michael Mixon'' gave donations ranging from $500 to $5,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to Federal Election Commission reports and two campaign donor tracking Web sites, www.politicalmoneyline.com and www.opensecrets.org.
    The NRCC did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment Tuesday about whether it would return the donations.
    In the federal indictment, the government said Alishtari, 53, of Ardsley, N.Y., accepted an unspecified amount of money to transfer $152,000 to Pakistan and Afghanistan to support an Afghanistan terrorist training camp. He also stands accused of causing the transfer of about $25,000 from a bank account in New York to an account in Montreal, money the government says was to be used to provide material support to terrorists.
    Also, the indictment says, Alishtari schemed to defraud investors by obtaining millions of dollars in a loan investment scheme that he called the ``Flat Electronic Data Interchange'' and that promised high guaranteed rates of return.
    The charges carry a potential penalty of 95 years in prison.
    Alishtari was detained pending a court appearance this week. Prosecutors said he was a danger to the community and a flight risk.
    On campaign finance forms, Alishtari identified his occupation as either the owner, president or chief executive of a business called Global Protector Inc., or GlobalProtector.Net, Inc. In some filings he listed the business as being located in the Bronx and in other filings in Scarsdale, N.Y.
    A resume listed in his name and posted on an MSN group Web site on Jan. 8, 2007, identifies him as being an ``industrialist and philanthropist'' and references previous connections to the Republican Party.
    The resume says that in 2003 Alishtari was named a National Republican Senatorial Committee ``Inner Circle Member for Life'' and was appointed to the NRCC's ``White House Business Advisory Committee.'' The resume also says Alishtari was named the NRCC's New York state businessman of the year in 2002 and 2003.
    The 2007 resume identifies him as the founder of IDPixie LLC, which is described as an ``ID theft protection agency.''

    ReplyDelete
  29. Worf said "But the real irony is here, is that this is exactly how the Iraqi people are "beating" us. They aren't beating us. They're just going to outlast us. In the end, just like England did 200 years ago, we will decide it is too costly, as you cannot control a people who demand on defining their own destiny.

    In fact, one might say the Iraqi people are fighting for their freedom. Because freedom is not a given form of government.

    Freedom is the government that a given group of people, choose for themselves.""

    Thats exactly what their plan is, and Neo Con Fools Like Bush and Cheney are too stupid and arrogant stoo look past their egos to see it, they are doing exactly what our Patriotic colonist did against England trying to outlast the power, and Bush neither sees the anology or the Irony, he's like a spoiled brat that cant see past what he wants.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Tomatoe heads

    If you bird-brains feel this strongly about impeachment then I suggest you stop licking the dust off those Cheeto bags and start organizing some kind of peaceful protest......you may even burn a few calories.

    Put down those sausages, pizza slices, cookies, and cheeseburgers, and take a little physical action for once.


    However, I do agree veterans deserve proper health care.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous5:13 AM

    POLL: AMERICANS 'WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ'
    Tue Feb 20 2007 16:21:32 ET

    In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, a new national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS) shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected leaders on this issue.

    The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.

    The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory, said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.


    By a 53 percent - 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.


    By identical 57 percent - 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security and the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.


    Also, by a 56 percent - 43 percent margin, voters agreed that even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.


    While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it's still possible, while 43 percent disagree.


    By a wide 74 percent - 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the notion that "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home."

    When asked which statement best describes their position on the Iraq War, voters are evenly divided (50 percent - 49 percent) between positions of "doing whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country," and positions that call for immediate withdrawal or a strict timetable.


    27 percent said "the Iraq war is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country."


    23 percent said "while I don't agree that the U.S. should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country."


    32 percent said "whether Iraq is stable or not, the U.S. should set and hold to a strict timetable for withdrawing troops."


    17 percent said "the U.S. should immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq."

    The survey also found that voters thought it would hurt American prestige more to pull out of Iraq immediately (59 percent) than it would to stay there for the long term (35 percent). Public Opinion Strategies "scored the best win-loss record among the major polling and media firms in the 2004 election" and was named Pollster of the Year in 2002.

    X X X X X

    ReplyDelete
  32. Which brings to reason his entire agenda for going to war in the first place. None of this surprises me.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jacq - none of this surprises me either.

    ReplyDelete
  34. And Troll Troll, you were warned next time you did one of those retarded cheeto dust or stupid nonsensical pizza and cheeseburger posts it would be deleted.............might I suggest you go to a chat room or a psychiatrist because either one would be more appropriate for you than a blog that focuses on intelligent discussing rather than name calling and incoherent retarded babbling like you and your pal Rusty both do.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Oh and it looks like TT is to afraid to use his own handle so he posts BS under anonymous, how pathetic for you guys.

    BTW TT as long as your here how about commenting on the treatment of our veterans at the Walter Reed facility.

    and dont just stick in a quick insincere I feel the veterans deserve proper heathcare at the end or a retarded nazi like insult that is 8 times as long as the statement saying vets deserve proper healthcare.

    Moo Moo like a typoical nazi tries to stifle free speech with insults, intimidation and smears, by implying we dont have the right to voice our opinion verbally or in print about the treatment of veterans unless we take some type of as he says "physical" action (what ever the hell that is) that he approves of......................typical nazi like dictator and megalomaniac control freak trying to deny his opponents the right to voice their opinions and stifle free speech with smears.

    You would make a good nazi moo moo, or a brainwashed Volksturm follower.

    ReplyDelete
  36. But the point is Moo Moo this is America not nazi Germany and I can speak my mind and voice any opinion I want and if you dont like it tough shit.

    You have no business trying to dictate what people can say or what causes they can support or how they want to support said causes, so take yoy nazi talk and tactics and your retarded smears and your inept attempt at intimidation and go intimidate and control your daughter or your ex wife, or who ever else you think you can bully or who might be afraid of you because that crap doesnt work hear.

    No one respects or fears you, now your daughter and ex wife probabl;y fear you because they know what an unstable psycho wacco you really are.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Gee, now if Dana Priest hadn't sucking at the trough back in 2002 when it would have made a goddamned difference....

    ReplyDelete
  38. I do find it rather "interesting" that Volt and FF have nothing to say, all you Neo Con fools can muster is johnny posting his retarded cheetos, pizza and cheesburger BS mixed in with a nazi type anti free speech paragraph trying to limit discussion about the attrocities to veterans and the a tiny sentence about the vets deserving proper heathcare thrown in for good measure.

    Then TT posting anonymously that America really supports the war, and they want victory, what ever the hell that is, even though your definition of victory changes like the wind and you have no clear coherent plan to achieve victory just keep doing the same thing over and over and getting more american soldiers killed and wasting more tax dollars.

    My guess is more of the same, you fools have absolutely nothing to say so probably Rusty and TT will come in anonymously to insult people and post BS.

    ReplyDelete
  39. For proof....try here...

    ReplyDelete
  40. Carl, go read my 10:34PM post that Moo Moo and Troll Tex tried to cover up.

    ReplyDelete
  41. While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it's still possible, while 43 percent disagree.

    Clearly, these 800 voters were drawn from the local insane asylum...

    ReplyDelete
  42. it shows how successful Bush's programs are at finding terrorists, the repugs are arte terrorists.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Mike,

    I read that yesterday. It wasn't the Senatorial campaign committe, but the Congressional Campaign Committee, I thought.

    Nevertheless, $52,000 ought to be given to the veterans at Walter Reade by these nefarious terrorists, and they should be forced to resign for dealing with terrorists and their sympathizers.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous said...
    Yes we have more enemies than ever. what's going on in afghanistan? why the ramp up?


    The Taliban is massing for a big Spring offensive, which will start with blowing up some dams in the north.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Mike,

    Why are you bothering answering GooGoo?

    It's obvious that all the glue-sniffing has addled his mind so badly that he actually believes he's "Neo"

    "Newbie", is more like it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Maxmixt said...
    with the democrats in power, does anyone think it's possible that GW will invade Iran or launch a first strike?


    Sure. It's possible. Less likely now, of course, but remember, most of these gibbons signed off on the Iraq war too.

    ReplyDelete
  47. So 60 percent of the idiots in this poll that Texasshole posted say that a stable democracy is impossible, but 53 percent of the low-normals in the poll that Texasshole posted say that a stable democracy in Iraq is possible.

    That's. Um. 113% of respondents...maybe this survery is, you know, WRONG??????

    ReplyDelete
  48. Well you know TT's command of facts dont ya Carl, TT and Hanitty according to him cvlaimed that 98% of the military and 75% of the USA population have college degrees, thats claiming 225 million Americans have college degrees, pretty riddiculous huh?

    But then they just made that up to smear John Kerry, they will lie and say or do anything to deceive people or smear their opponents.....put post an irrefutable fact and they run away.

    ReplyDelete
  49. What I find amazing Carl, is that just last year the repugs were claiming that liberals were in league with and supporting terrorists and were traitors and that the terrorists WANTED the democrats to be elected, and lo and behold but the repugs, specifically these Republicans' campaign committee.

    This shows beyond a doubt that :

    1) The terrorists are in league with and supporting the repugs

    2) the terrorists clearly wanted the repugs to be elected and remain in power.

    Kinda just like the outlaw prefers the bumbling incompetent sheriff over the more capable one.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Thats an EXCELLENT! start Carl. but they also need to investigate the voters being stricken from the voting roles, the illegal road blocks Jeb Bush set up to obstruct the vote, and the letters and calls to discourage voting and turnout for democrats...........this BS needs to be stopped these shold be acts of treason with mandatory 20 years to life and no parole.

    We need to do everything possible to discourage and stop voter fraud..............i'm sure the repuggies are against voter fraud............arent they??????????????

    ReplyDelete
  51. I mean the repugs said they are against terrorists and we find out that known terrorists supporters have been long time loyal campaign contributors to the repugs, They claim they support the military and our veterans, yet the veterans are living in deplorable conditions having benefits cut and our soldiers dont have the proper equipment and armor to do their jobs.,with this in mind should we believe them if they "SAY" they are against votor fraud or pension fraud.

    people's actions often speak louder than their words.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous9:53 AM

    Oh my god,oh my god...the sky is falling,the sky is falling.....terrorist everywhere,voter fraud.....our rights trampled on......torture everywhere......economic disaster on the horizon.....RUN,RUN,RUN....THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  53. You know, the more I read the babblings of the right wing nutjobs in here, the more I think we're screwed. Listen to moo moo , shackleford (anonymous) and the rest of the morons.

    Sick, twisted f$#ks who won't be happy until the planet is bathed in blood.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Lydia, I could not agree more. in fact, I posted a very similar article at my place a couple days ago. I think Bush cares about out troops only as long as they are useful to him as cannon fodder. It appalls me that he and his cronies have the audacity to say that WE don't support them, when his budget calls for gutting veterans' health care, despite such shameful conditions as these. FYI there's a new article in the religious left series.

    For anyone troubled by the poll results left by someone who conveniently prefers to remain anonymous, Public Opinion Strategies is a neoconservative research company formed in 1991 to conduct GOP opinion surveys. They are notorious for both 'wording bias' and 'coverage bias'. They types of surveys in which they specialize are intended to mold public opinion rather that sample it, often called 'advertising surveys'.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Instead of war the US should have taken advantage of this opertunity to rid itself of the scurge of America.

    The US should have forcibly started the largest landfill project in history in the deserts of iraq and deposited all the national garbage that does not have a home into this one spot. After flooding the desert with the remains of 400 million americans for say 25 years we could have retired and felt that our disposal problem , including nueclear biological and other hazmat products had a good home for the next 55 - 300 years

    Thats what you get for cheerin on the guys who blow our buildings apart

    the gift of Garbage ....

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous said...
    Oh my god,oh my god...the sky is falling,the sky is falling.....terrorist everywhere,voter fraud.....our rights trampled on......torture everywhere......economic disaster on the horizon.....RUN,RUN,RUN....THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!


    In a nation where terrorists didn't strike, except the homegrown ones, where or votes mattered and counted, where not ten years ago, a decent living could be made without having money in the bank to begin with, where torture was unheard of...yea.

    The sky is falling.

    The US national debt is about $8 trillion. That's only have the total debt of this country.

    The sky is dangling by a thread.

    ReplyDelete
  57. the tranquilizer said...
    Thats what you get for cheerin on the guys who blow our buildings apart


    Yea. We ought to ban Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  58. BATWORFEUS said...
    Sick, twisted f$#ks who won't be happy until the planet is bathed in blood.


    Ann Coulter says it's good for the skin, and you can eliminate the competition for dates in the same breath.

    ReplyDelete
  59. We ought to ban Republicans.

    are they like pilots ?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Alice, I think said...
    We ought to ban Republicans.

    are they like pilots ?


    More like gremlins.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Another idiot said...

    Thats what you get for cheerin on the guys who blow our buildings apart

    the gift of Garbage


    Fine. We'll send them all our garbage.

    We'll send you first.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Lead us by example batwoerpuss
    babababhahahaah

    ReplyDelete
  63. BATWORFEUS said...
    Another idiot said...

    Thats what you get for cheerin on the guys who blow our buildings apart

    the gift of Garbage

    Fine. We'll send them all our garbage.

    We'll send you first.


    We probably should peel off the toxic waste first. You know, for the environment.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Alice, I think, doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Well this garbage thing would sure be a better solution.

    Think of 400 lbs of crap, polution and tampoons in your front yard , why you can blow it up all you want its still a mess

    and no one has to die

    ReplyDelete
  66. The Iraqi people did nothing to us.

    Only wicked and bad people would lash out against them because of the actions of a handful of people on 911.


    And as for my leading by example?

    I didn't know I was your boss.

    ReplyDelete
  67. But if I am your leader, then please bring me a beer.

    ReplyDelete
  68. And a slice of apple pie.

    ReplyDelete
  69. With some ice cream on top.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, beer a la mode....

    ReplyDelete
  71. I'm sorry, Alice, did I break your concentration????

    ReplyDelete
  72. miss me already ?

    I don't miss you

    ReplyDelete
  73. honestly I think of Lydia as a goddess

    yah true !!

    I wish she was in more hollywood stuff

    ReplyDelete
  74. alice,i think said...
    miss me already ?

    I don't miss you


    Sadly. No. You don't.

    ReplyDelete
  75. What is it with trolls that they always have to imitate teenage girls, Worf?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Could it be they're taking "pick on someone you're own size" too literally?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Are you, GooGoo?

    ReplyDelete
  78. I think Alice is not a troll. At least she links to her website. If thats her on her website then she's an actress on a show for comedy central. And she looks pretty sweet.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Course I haven't read any of her comments so I can't say one way or the other.

    I was responding to that person calling themselves the tranquilizer, who said we should send garbage to Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I'm thinking that, given his past behavior, "Alice" is GooGoo. He's always hiding behind some teen age chick's skirts or another...

    ReplyDelete
  81. Besides, Worf, anyone can link to any website in their profile.

    ReplyDelete
  82. The real problem with treatment of the troops in this abomination they called a medical holding facility because they NEVER planned on treating this many causalities. The simple fact that NOBODY is really being held truly accountable, like with relief of their command or courts martial for negligence or dereliction of duty shows the fact that Bushco is trying to sweep this one under the rugs like they did the fiasco FEMA and how poorly it responded to Katrina. The only problem Bush and the NEO-CONS see is that this got OUT at all.

    If they really cared about the troops at all they would have been going to this facility and had seen these substandard conditions for themselves, which would have meant the conditions would have been fixed long ago. The fact the commander of the hospital lived across the street from this facility is astounding, he either never went into the building which means he IGNORED the health and welfare of soldiers he was responsible for, or he just ignored it.

    The Bush administration will put out people saying the right things trying to fix the media mess, but as for the troops it is far too late to fix the horrible conditions and illegal war they were forced to endure.

    F%$&@K impeachment, just send Bush and Cheney to Baghdad, give them a weapon and tell them to do the duty they hid from years ago. BTW sans body armor and no up-armor vehicles for them either. Just what they expected the troops to use.

    ReplyDelete
  83. BTW Tiny the Liar take your dishonest poll and SHOVE it where the MOON don't shine son.

    GOP Pollster Says Poll Showing War Support Is Bogus


    Conservatives are out there in full force trumpeting a poll that appeared on the front page of today's New York Post allegedly showing that there's much more support for the Iraq war than anybody thought.

    The poll -- which was done by the big GOP firm Public Opinion Strategies and ran under the glaring headline "America Says Lets Win War" -- is being promoted heavily by wingnut talk show hosts, bloggers and others. They are aggressively using it to pump up GOP morale and to undermine Dems' resolve in advance of a showdown between Congress and the White House. Rush Limbaugh said that it's going to "shock the Democrats," while PowerlineBlog's Paul Mirengoff sagely observed that it shows that "the Democrats' defeatist approach to Iraq may not be a winning political strategy." Some liberal bloggers have already started to debunk the poll -- don't miss Steve Benen's skillful skewering of the survey right here.

    But guess what: I've just asked another Republican pollster who says he originally supported the war -- let me repeat that, a Republican pollster who says he supported the war. -- to analyze the poll. His take? He basically says the poll's a crock. The pollster, David Johnson, the CEO of the GOP firm Strategic Vision, tells me that some of the key questions were leading and designed to elicit the answers they got. "This poll is not the quality we've come to expect from national polling firms," Johnson tells me.

    First, let's look at what the poll "found."

    In a dramatic finding, a new poll shows a solid majority of Americans still wants to win the war in Iraq -- and keep U.S. troops there until the Baghdad government can take over.

    Strong majorities also say victory is vital to the War on Terror and that Americans should support President Bush even if they have concerns about the way the war is being handled, according to the survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies.

    The poll found that 57 percent of Americans supported "finishing the job in Iraq" - keeping U.S. troops there until the Iraqis can provide security on their own. Forty-one percent disagreed.

    By 53 percent to 43 percent they also believe victory in Iraq over the insurgents is still possible....

    Only 25 percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement, "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home." Seventy-four percent disagreed.


    Now let's look at the actual questions. They're here.

    The first finding -- that 57 % support "finishing the job" -- is based on asking respondents whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” What does Johnson, the pollster I spoke to, think about this question?

    "It's designed to elicit a positive response by putting respondents in the position of saying that they don't support `finishing a job,'" Johnson says. "It's not a straightforward wording at all. It's also put in the first person to personalize it. In polling when you use the first person you generally get a more positive response."

    The next finding -- that Americans think victory is "possible" by 53%-43% -- is based on asking whether respondents agree or disagree with this: "Victory in Iraq, that is creating a young but stable democracy in Iraq and reducing the threat of terrorism at home, is no longer possible for the U.S." Pretty tricky, eh? Note that this question is framed as a negative -- forcing people to disagree with a negative. And it asks whether people think it's "no longer possible" to reduce the threat of terrorism at home -- something that's clearly worded that way because fewer would agree with it.

    "This wording is completely unprofessional," Johnson says. "It's designed to confuse the respondent. People are being asked whether two different things can be accomplished -- establishing democracy in Iraq and reducing the threat of terrorism at home -- and [the question] doesn't clarify which one people are talking about."

    Finally, let's look at the finding that only 25% agree with the statement, "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home."

    "That's a leading question," Johnson says. "It's forcing people who want the troops brought home to say they disagree, because it's forcing them to say they don't care what happens if they're pulled out. Most Americans don't want the troops there but they're also concerned about what will happen if they're pulled out." Asked if he was merely badmouthing a competitor, Johnson said that they were "not often" in competition because his firm does state polls while Public Opinion Strategies focuses on national ones.

    So what's the response of the author of this poll to all this? I called Public Opinion Strategies' partner and co-founder Neil Newhouse, and he got back to me. While declining to get into specifics, he said: "He's entitled to his opinion. So he's got a problem with the way the questions are worded? At least we laid them all out there for everyone to see. This shows a much more nuanced view of how voters are looking at the war. This is a significantly different way to look at attitudes."

    ReplyDelete
  84. This comment has been removed because it linked to malicious content. Learn more.

    ReplyDelete
  85. An Exploration of Republican Iraq War (Il)logic

    A. Alexander, February 21st, 2007

    Let's explore Republican (il)logic.

    If a person supports a war that was based on falsified "intelligence" and an additional billion false accusations, not to mention a heaping pile of fear mongering claims about "smoking guns in the form of mushroom" clouds, that person is -- according to Republican (il)logic -- a true patriot. Any daring to oppose that war are, so Republican (il)logic tells us, traitors. Make sense?

    Wait, because Republican (il)logic only gets better...or is it worse?

    If a person supports the war started under false pretenses and, despite a strategy that has been nothing less than disastrous, pitches child-like fits of feigned outrage until the military slogs on until it can no longer complete its core mission of defending the country's national security interests; that person -- according to Republican (il)logic -- is to be considered 'pro-military' and 'strong on national defense'. However, any person that might point out the fact that the failed war strategy is destroying the military and undermining its ability to secure the American people from foreign threats...well, that person is -- when analyzed through the prism of Republican (il)logic -- a 'weak-kneed defeatist' who 'hates' America. Make sense?

    Ah, but that is only the tip of the Republican (il)logic iceberg!

    What about the person who supports the war based on lies, cheerleads the war's disastrous handling, ignores the fact that the military is being destroyed, and for good measure seeks to send an additional 21,000 U.S. military personnel into that war? Well, no surprise -- according to Republican (il)logic -- that person is to be considered a super-duper "troop" loving, "troop" supporter. And what about the person who is bold enough to try and prevent more "troops" from being senselessly slaughtered in that war? Republican (il)logic says that person is...tah-dah...a troop hater! Make sense?

    Of course, none of this Republican (il)logic makes any sense at all. It isn't supposed to make sense. It is simply intended to confuse the issue, muddy the waters, stifle debate, and deflect attention from the fact that Mister Bush is sending another 21,000 soldiers into the middle of Iraq's civil war. A strategy by the way, he has tried on at least two prior occasions and that had failed miserably.

    Know what is really scary? Many Republicans actually believe their (il)logic is logical.

    ReplyDelete
  86. The Master is not pleased with his futile subjects......a turban ripping is neccesary to keep order.....period!

    ReplyDelete
  87. Mike

    May I remind you that time is not on your side. Your 37, never been married, and no kids. Your parents stamina in hiding their shame/dissapointment in you is not infinite.

    I suggest you lay of the Cheetos and seriously work on your bubble butt.....not to mention your weak, cowardly character in defending women in REAL LIFE........LOL!

    :|

    ReplyDelete
  88. Uhhhhh.........Carl the Crack Splitter,.

    I think you’ve swallowed one too many of Leroy’s malt shakes........or maybe its all the dingleberrys you’ve sniffed when eating Tom’s assh@le......gross!

    Unlike you, I actually work during the day, whereas you most likely spend your entire week planning the next Boy Scout Jamboree........LOL!

    :D
    :|

    ReplyDelete
  89. Bible Boy said

    "If thats her on her website then she's an actress on a show for comedy central. And she looks pretty sweet."

    Calm down Worf, she's only fifteen.

    :|

    ReplyDelete
  90. And, now for Cliff's all time favourite....LOL!



    "Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why, why do you do it? Why, why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something, for more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is, do you even know?

    Is it freedom or truth, perhaps peace - could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson, vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose.

    Although, only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love.

    You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson, you must know it by now! You can't win, it's pointless to keep fighting! Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why do you persist?

    ReplyDelete
  91. You guy's are so stooooooopid you dont even recognize when I kinda agree with ya's.....idiots!

    Its impossible to reason with Cheeto destroyers......simply mention a little exercise (via civil protest) and they have nervous breakdowns.

    Very well, just keep on bloggin fatso's.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Interesting how our Veterans are living in squalor in a rat and cockroach infested hole, and The Reich wing trolls are either silent or want to blather on like retards about cheesburgers and cheetos and call people fatso, or post BS polls that they are too embarrased dont even have the guts to post under their real handles.........really pathetic isnt it.

    And where is Bush in all this.....oh yeah he could care less about the veterans or the troops, he just cares about shaking his pom poms and cheering on the war and trying to convince the weak minded how important the war is.

    ReplyDelete
  93. You need to reread Clif's post that the babbling trolls just tried to bury, it is an excellent summation or repug il-logic!


    clif said...
    An Exploration of Republican Iraq War (Il)logic

    A. Alexander, February 21st, 2007

    Let's explore Republican (il)logic.

    If a person supports a war that was based on falsified "intelligence" and an additional billion false accusations, not to mention a heaping pile of fear mongering claims about "smoking guns in the form of mushroom" clouds, that person is -- according to Republican (il)logic -- a true patriot. Any daring to oppose that war are, so Republican (il)logic tells us, traitors. Make sense?

    Wait, because Republican (il)logic only gets better...or is it worse?

    If a person supports the war started under false pretenses and, despite a strategy that has been nothing less than disastrous, pitches child-like fits of feigned outrage until the military slogs on until it can no longer complete its core mission of defending the country's national security interests; that person -- according to Republican (il)logic -- is to be considered 'pro-military' and 'strong on national defense'. However, any person that might point out the fact that the failed war strategy is destroying the military and undermining its ability to secure the American people from foreign threats...well, that person is -- when analyzed through the prism of Republican (il)logic -- a 'weak-kneed defeatist' who 'hates' America. Make sense?

    Ah, but that is only the tip of the Republican (il)logic iceberg!

    What about the person who supports the war based on lies, cheerleads the war's disastrous handling, ignores the fact that the military is being destroyed, and for good measure seeks to send an additional 21,000 U.S. military personnel into that war? Well, no surprise -- according to Republican (il)logic -- that person is to be considered a super-duper "troop" loving, "troop" supporter. And what about the person who is bold enough to try and prevent more "troops" from being senselessly slaughtered in that war? Republican (il)logic says that person is...tah-dah...a troop hater! Make sense?

    Of course, none of this Republican (il)logic makes any sense at all. It isn't supposed to make sense. It is simply intended to confuse the issue, muddy the waters, stifle debate, and deflect attention from the fact that Mister Bush is sending another 21,000 soldiers into the middle of Iraq's civil war. A strategy by the way, he has tried on at least two prior occasions and that had failed miserably.

    Know what is really scary? Many Republicans actually believe their (il)logic is logical.

    ReplyDelete
  94. And Troll Tex's stupid repug poll was pretty easy to see through, Tom, Clif, Carl, Worf and basically EVERYONE with a functionion brain saw right through it and the stupid Troll that posted it.

    Your transparent as ever my little green friend.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Rusty the Fool said "Oh my god,oh my god...the sky is falling,the sky is falling.....terrorist everywhere,voter fraud.....our rights trampled on......torture everywhere......economic disaster on the horizon.....RUN,RUN,RUN....THE SKY IS FALLING!!!"


    No little troll, there are not terrorists EVERYWHERE..............just supporting the repugs and trying to get them reelected, seems you use projection quite a bit, you call us traitors when you are really the traitors, you call us in league with and supporting the terrorists, when you are really inleague with them, you say we hate our country and our troops and dont support the trops and veterans when thats what you do, you pretend to protect children from predators when you guys ARE the predators,,,,,,,,,,,I could go on and on with your hippocrissy.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Johnny moo who said...


    Calm down Worf, she's only fifteen.



    Oh is she? Well, I don't know I just quickly glanced at the website, so I'll defer to your judgement, you being the expert and all. Which you must be right, being the show is a Canadian television show?

    Funny that just happened to be a Canadian TV show that you apparently are familiar with.... huh?

    Funny how that shit works out.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Its a small world after all.

    ReplyDelete
  98. A small small small small world.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Worf said

    "Oh is she? Well, I don't know I just quickly glanced at the website, so I'll defer to your judgement, you being the expert and all. Which you must be right, being the show is a Canadian television show?"


    Well, in all honesty I made the same mistake. When I first seen the chick I thought she was in her twenties. Ive never seen or heard of this show before until last nite. And, yes it is funny the show is Canadian.....hmmmmmmm?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Yea, hmmmmmmm....


    Just another amazing coincidence.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Another coinkydink.

    ReplyDelete
  102. After all, who'd pick an obscure Canadian young female actress to impersonate here in the blog???

    I mean... who'd do that?


    No one we know I'm sure...

    :|

    ReplyDelete
  103. This may have been mentioned already because I didn't read down through the comments, but Don Imus (who I don't usually watch because I think he's vulgar sometimes) was saying this morning about Walter Reed that when one goes to visit this hospital, they are led to the areas that are nice and beautiful. Well, of course they are! Building 18 is never seen by the public...not even by our Senators or House Reps either. Imus was outraged and even felt guilty on air because all the times he's visited our wounded over there...he did not know the conditions of some of the severely wounded were living in!

    He actually started crying on air.

    Imus also pointed out that one of the Generals in charge at Walter Reed said that the soldiers were the cause of the rodents being there because they would leave food in their rooms for the rats to eat. Imus was bullshit and said that now the Generals are blaming the troops along with the neocons in this country, so when Susan Sarandon or one of us lambastes the illegal occupation, WE CAN'T BE BLAMED FOR EMBOLDENING THE ENEMY.....BECAUSE THE GENERALS, THE BUSH REGIME, AND THE NEOCONS ARE DOING A GREAT JOB BY THEMSELVES!

    It was a very powerful segment on Imus this morning. It's an abomination what is going on over there at Walter Reed and Americans need to continue to talk about it!!

    ^5 to Imus and everyone who is keeping this story alive for the sake of our troops.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Johnny Goo Goo said...
    Unlike you, I actually work during the day


    Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I don't think chugging beers on your couch while watching Maury is defined as "work" by social services, but you keep on trying, Sheila!

    ReplyDelete
  105. Johnny moo moo said...
    Well, in all honesty I made the same mistake. When I first seen the chick I thought she was in her twenties.


    I bet you say that to all the judges...

    What is it with GooGoo and pederasty, anyway? Is that why his daughter looks terrified in those photos he posted?

    I've never seen a "loving" daughter shy away from a "loving" father, unless he's, you know, forced his "loving" on her...

    ReplyDelete
  106. clif said...
    Poll: Majority of Americans Wish Bush Was a Fictitious Character

    Loses to Easter Bunny, Aquaman in Theoretical Match-ups


    When he starts losing to the Banana Splits, let me know...

    ReplyDelete
  107. Oh of course! GooGoo must be an OB-GYN! That's why he's "loving" his daughter!

    "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

    Clearly, Bush had GooGoo in mind when he said that...so how long HAVE you been a fugitive, GooGoo?

    I'd say we've probably seen you on "America's Most Wanted", but it's the "Wanted" part that keeps you off...

    ReplyDelete
  108. KayinMaine: your comment and compassion are beautiful.

    It is our duty to be good Americans and put these thugs (Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al) in prison.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Clif, great posts! The majority of Americans wish Bush was a fictitious character -- EXACTLY! He seems like one.

    And you're right; there shouldn't be so many casualties. We shouldn't be putting our troops in the middle of suicide bombings, a civil war, directly in the center of hell.

    ReplyDelete
  110. These thugs belong in jail, the rethugs are the biggest crimminals and hippocrites i've ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Carl, I wouldnt even waste my time responding to Moo Moo, he's just a ignoranbt loser troll that craves the attention, dont feed the trolls, just ignore him and make him as impotentent and irrelevant here as he is in real life.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Carl, I really liked that article on your blog about feudalism.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Carl said...

    "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."


    LOL.

    Thats gotta be the best thing Bush has said in his entire presidency.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Mike, thanks. It's been on my mind more and more as I realize that this country is officially about $15 trillion dollars in debt, between our government and the people living here.

    That means we've borrowed that much in future income. Considering the gross domestic product of the country is only about a trillion, maybe two, a year and we citizens see about a third of that, and the government another third, ohbrudder, we're fVcked.

    Pardon the French, Lydia...

    ReplyDelete
  115. Yeah Carl, that means we've mortgaged our future, i've said many times over the last few years that the two main causes of Depressions like the Great depression are:

    1) Excessive debt

    2) uneven distribution of wealth, with the ultra wealthy seizing more and more of the financial pie at the expense of the poor and middle class.

    Right now we have both, couple that with a catalyst like an oil shock and we could see worse than the Great Depression............we are Fu##ed and idiots like TT and Rusty are to dumb to see it coming.

    ReplyDelete
  116. It gets worse, Mike. In the Great Depression, the US itself was barely in debt, as compared to today.

    In fact, we mostly ran surpluses to small deficits for the first 200 years of our existence.

    So much so that Ronald Reagan of all people ran on a platform that the $80 billion dollar deficit Jimmy Carter had was strangling the nation's ability to be flexible in times of crisis.

    LOL!

    Sorry. I had to laugh at the baldfaced cynicism of that blatant overspender lecturing the relatively frugal Carter about a deficit....

    Throughout his Presidency, Reagan signed budgets passed by the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS that were $16 billion dollars less than he proposed!

    And managed to outspend each one each year.

    ReplyDelete
  117. To any and all right wing idiots out there who think Iraq is a success, I just wanted to remind you once more what simple inbred idiots you are.

    Idiots.

    9 US Helicopters shot down in the last month.

    NINE.

    Thats one hell of a success you've got there.

    Idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Iraq is a suck-cess.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Ah, but Worf....success for whom?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Someone other than us, thats for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Why do Republicans hate America so, Worf? Haven't we given them everything their greedy little heart's desired?

    Where did we go wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Nine US Helicopters shot down in a few short weeks.

    Car bombs and truck bomb killing hundreds daily.

    Suicide bombers, IEDS, ambush attacks, and now even chemical attacks.

    And Bush and Cheney stand there telling us we are winning.

    And there are still right wing idiots out there who believe it.

    It boggles the mind.

    ReplyDelete
  123. If this is winning, then I sure hope we don't "win" anymore wars.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Well, you know, you do have to break a few eggs....by the way, wanna start a "Draft Jenna (and NotJenna)" site now that Prince Harry is laying his life on the line?

    ReplyDelete
  125. And this is EXACTLY what we told them would happen if they did this.

    Yet they're still too proud and too stupid to admit it.

    Problem is, young Americans will have to continue to die while these proud strutting peacocks figure it out.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Carl said...
    wanna start a "Draft Jenna (and NotJenna)" site now that Prince Harry is laying his life on the line?

    Well Harry's kinda off the hook now, with Blair announcing a pull out for England.

    I'm sure the Queen squeezed Blairs gnads pretty hard when young Harry started singing the war song. She probably told Blair to end it, or she'd end his career.

    And since the only thing keeping England there was Blairs odd stewardship to Bush, and since it is clear to everyone in England including Tony Blair that Iraq was a mistake, and is lost, it probably didn't take too much squeezing for Blair to pull the plug.

    After all, he's making himself and England look like our wiser, nobler elder while simeultaneously keeping Harry from getting his ass shot off, thus keeping the Crown happy.

    For Blair, thats a jollygood show.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Not exactly cricket with regards to his war pact with Bush, but hey, nobody likes Bush anyway, so its not like its going to cost Blair any fans for tossing his mentor under the bus.

    In fact, its probably gonna win him a shitload of new ones.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Assuming he doesn't backpedal.

    Distancing himself from Bush is the best thing Tony Blair can do right now.

    In fact, its the best thing any of us can do.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Two things, Worf:

    a) England is only pulling out 3,000 troops by year's end. They have nearly 8,000 there.

    b) Harry volunteered for a full tour of duty, a year, so it looks like he'll serve a full tour.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Carl said...
    Two things, Worf:

    a) England is only pulling out 3,000 troops by year's end. They have nearly 8,000 there.

    b) Harry volunteered for a full tour of duty, a year, so it looks like he'll serve a full tour.



    While it's true only 3000 come out by years end, you are leaving out the fact that the 8000 will be gone by the end of next year.

    He smacked Bush right in the face with a deadline, something Bush has fought against since the beginning of the war.

    As for Harry going? I wouldn't hold your breath.

    I don't see the crown permitting it, particularly after losing his mom. They will want the line of succession well intact, and they know Harry's a "breeder". They have more than enough candidates ready to go and they don't need the crowns prince coming back from Blairs folly minus a limb or two. Or worse, in a casket.

    I think the announcement of Englands withdrawal just 2 days after the story broke that Harry wanted to go pretty much demonstrates that they won't let him go.

    I could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet on that.

    ReplyDelete
  131. But I agree with the sentiment that Blair should be making the pullout quicker.

    It seems like a half hearted message to be sure, kinda like he's trying to prod Bush into calling the game, so everyone can go home.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Harry is third in line for the throne and therefore any heirs of his will rank way down the list, unless William ends up sterile.

    And even then, count on some "miracle".

    And there's a very rich tradition of the third or even second in line serving. For example, Harry's uncle Andrew flew choppers in combat during the Falkland Wars.

    The royal system demands much of their royalty, altho not as much as it used to.

    ReplyDelete
  133. But either way, England, who is our number one partner in the coalitition of the billing, announcing their withdrawal, sends a strong message to everyone involved that its time to wrap it up, cause they're not hanging on idefinately.

    Still Blair will leave some troops there supporting Bush's war until the end of his Presidency (interesting how Blair picked December 08 to be gone, right as Bush's term ends) and this shows Bush has something over Blair, either just some personal loyalty thing, or something else we can't quite see.

    One things for sure, Bush's last two years will be bloody and costly.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Carl said...
    Harry is third in line for the throne and therefore any heirs of his will rank way down the list, unless William ends up sterile.


    Firstly, 3rd is very, very high. There are Duchesses and Dukes all over the place talking about how they're 1272'nd in line.

    Harry is number 3.

    In the Christian hierarchal order that would make him equivalent to the Holy Ghost.

    But there is much more you are still leaving out about Harry. Harry is not just number 3 in line, he is a favorite son of England along with his brother.

    He carries the celebrity status of his mother, who was perhaps the most famous princess that England ever knew. Diana was loved worldwide, and brought celebrity and popularity to the crown. Her two sons now fulfill that role.

    And England is not ready to see Harry with a mechanical arm and an ear missing, as he speaks through a voice box from his motorized wheelchair, or worse, in a body bag, particularly consider they are still stinging from the loss of Diana.

    No, I don't think he'll go. I think they'll work to keep that from happening without openly denying his request.

    And if he does go, I think extraordinary lengths will be taken to keep him from harm.

    ReplyDelete
  135. But I could be wrong. You make a good point about other crown heirs serving, but I think Harry is special, like his brother, and I don't think Englands ready to see Harry as a double amputee.

    ReplyDelete
  136. England still has a chance to put Iraq behind them. They had very few troops there, and very limited involvement to begin with. If they leave quietly and move forward, the commonwealth will put it behind them and move on.

    But if they have to look at images of Harry in a motorized wheelchair for the next 60 years, then it will always haunt them, and the crown, nor the Parliment, wants that.

    ReplyDelete
  137. But you might be right.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Prince Harry is going either to Iraq or Afghanistan. His unit is being deployed, but the British Military won't say exactly where for security reasons.(which is understandable considering what a target Harry would make for the extremists in either theater of operations)

    However Harry is not going the same way as most troops, the British Military is deploying a SAS unit for HIS protection. Sort of Like sending a special forces unit along with their secret service detail if Jenna and not Jenna went to war.

    I do give Harry KUDOS for demanding to serve since he is in uniform, unlike the gutless cowards we have in the 102nd chicken hawk gutless brigade commanded by the AWOL commander in chief himself. along with the following cast of gutless cowards who lack the testicular fortitude of Harry;

    Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
    * Tom Delay: did not serve.
    * Roy Blunt: did not serve.
    * Bill Frist: did not serve.
    * Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
    * Rick Santorum: did not serve.
    * Trent Lott: did not serve.
    * Dick Cheney: did not serve. Five deferments. “I had other priorities in the ’60s other than military service,” Cheney told a reporter in 1989.
    * John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
    * Jeb Bush: did not serve.
    * Karl Rove: did not serve.
    * Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. “Bad knee.” The man who attacked Max Cleland’s patriotism.
    * Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
    * Vin Weber: did not serve.
    * Richard Perle: did not serve.
    * Douglas Feith: did not serve.
    * Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
    * Richard Shelby: did not serve.
    * Jon Kyl: did not serve.
    * Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
    * Christopher Cox: did not serve.
    * Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
    * Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
    * George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year Air National Guard tour of duty; asked for and received an assignment to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.(AWOL)
    * Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
    * “B-1” Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
    * Phil Gramm: did not serve.
    * Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
    * John M. McHugh: did not serve.
    * JC Watts: did not serve.
    * Jack Kemp: did not serve. “Knee problem,” although continued playing in the NFL for 8 years.
    * Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
    * Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
    * George Pataki: did not serve.
    * Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
    * John Engler: did not serve.
    * Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
    * Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.


    Pundits & Preachers

    * Sean Hannity: did not serve.
    * Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a ‘pilonidal cyst.’)
    * Bill O’Reilly: did not serve.
    * Michael Savage: did not serve.
    * George Will: did not serve.
    * Chris Matthews: did not serve.
    * Paul Gigot: did not serve.
    * Bill Bennett: did not serve.
    * Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
    * Bill Kristol: did not serve.
    * Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
    * Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
    * Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
    * Ralph Reed: did not serve.
    * Michael Medved: did not serve.
    * Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
    * Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don’t shoot back.)
    * Ann Coulter did not serve ...she just slanders those that do

    and of course the gutless crop of chicken hawk trolls we have here.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Clif,

    From what I understand, he's being assigned to a unit in Basra, which is about as far from the action as any place in Iraq. But it could happen, which is the important thing.

    It's like the difference between Al Gore, the son of a Senator, who served in Nam as a reporter and another son of a bit-- I mean, heavyweight who ducked out on TANG duty...what WAS his name again???

    ReplyDelete
  140. Worf, I agree with you that it's symblomatic more than anything. But he's going, which is more than I've heard any Bush do...

    ReplyDelete
  141. I Think your all basically right, I think its good he's showing the courage Bush and Cheney lacked and actually going, I also think they will likely try and keep him out of combat, and I think Worf is probably right that he could possibly be the catalyst that hastens the british to pull out of iraq, although they would never admit that.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Carl, Basra is so peaceful the British have run to the airport and try to stay OUT of the town itself. There is 3 or 4 different Shiite tribes fighting for control but they all attack the British. The only reason the area looks good at all is because Baghdad and Anbar province looks so bad in comparison. If Basra was almost anywhere in the US martial law would immediately be declared. No place is safe for western occupiers, but Basra is still better than Fallugha, Ramadi, Samara or Baghdad as it goes.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Oily truth emerges in Iraq

    Throughout nearly four years of the daily mayhem and carnage in Iraq, President Bush and his aides in the White House have scoffed at even the slightest suggestion that the U.S. military occupation has anything to do with oil.
    The President presumably would have us all believe that if Iraq had the world's second-largest supply of bananas instead of petroleum, American troops would still be there.

    Now comes new evidence of the big prize in Iraq that rarely gets mentioned at White House briefings.

    A proposed new Iraqi oil and gas law began circulating last week among that country's top government leaders and was quickly leaked to various Internet sites - before it has even been presented to the Iraqi parliament.

    Under the proposed law, Iraq's immense oil reserves would not simply be opened to foreign oil exploration, as many had expected. Amazingly, executives from those companies would actually be given seats on a new Federal Oil and Gas Council that would control all of Iraq's reserves.

    In other words, Chevron, ExxonMobil, British Petroleum and the other Western oil giants could end up on the board of directors of the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, while Iraq's own national oil company would become just another competitor.

    The new law would grant the council virtually all power to develop policies and plans for undeveloped oil fields and to review and change all exploration and production contracts.

    Since most of Iraq's 73 proven petroleum fields have yet to be developed, the new council would instantly become a world energy powerhouse.

    "We're talking about trillions of dollars of oil that are at stake," said Raed Jarrar, an independent Iraqi journalist and blogger who obtained an Arabic copy of the draft law and posted an English-language translation on his Web site over the weekend.

    Take, for example, the massive Majnoon field in southern Iraq near the Iranian border, which contains an estimated 20 billion barrels. Before Saddam Hussein was toppled by the U.S. invasion in 2003, he had granted a $4 billion contract to French oil giant TotalFinaElf to develop the field.

    In the same way, the Iraqi dictator signed contracts with Chinese, Russian, Korean, Italian and Spanish companies to develop 10 other big oil fields once international sanctions against his regime were lifted.

    The big British and American companies had been shut out of Iraq, thanks to more than a decade of U.S. sanctions against Saddam.

    But if the new law passes, those companies will be the ones reviewing those very contracts and any others.

    "Iraq's economic security and development will be thrown into question with this law," said Antonia Juhasz of Oil Change International, a petroleum industry watchdog group. "It's a radical departure not only from Iraq's existing structure but from how oil is managed in most of the world today."

    Throughout the developing world, national oil companies control the bulk of oil production, though they often develop joint agreements with foreign commercial oil groups.

    But under the proposed law, the government-owned Iraqi National Oil Co. "will not get any preference over foreign companies," Juhasz said.

    The law must still be presented to the Iraqi parliament. Given the many political and religious divisions in the country, its passage is hardly guaranteed.

    The main religious and ethnic groups are all pushing to control contracts and oil revenues for their regions, while the Bush administration is seeking more centralized control.

    While the politicians in Washington and Baghdad bicker to carve up the real prize, and just what share Big Oil will get, more Iraqi civilians and American soldiers die each each day - for freedom, we're told.

    ReplyDelete
  144. I've said that for years Clif, This whole war was fought for big oil, for the Exxon Mobils of the world.

    The Bush admin and big oil are in bed with each other and are looking out for their OWN self serving agendas rather than for the best interests of our country and its soldiers.

    This war was fought to enrich big oil and the wealthy elite.

    See most of the non Middle Eastern Oil companies have declining or stagnant reserves and without rapidly rising prices thats a death sentence to resource/commodity companies.

    Big oil needed this war to open up Iraq and Irans oil and natural gas reserves so they could make trillions either developing their reserves or acquiring portions of them.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Bush said as much a few times, just like he said Saddam tried to kill his father, Bush isnt smart enough to hide or conceal his intentions por motives, it was obvious he wanted an excuse to attack Iraq just like he's looking for an excuse now to attack Iran.

    Bush is just like Rusty or Moo Moo or TT, I read him like a book, he's completely transparent, he shows clear apathy and disdain for veterans and the poor, Walter Reed and Katrina in New Orleans are perfect examples of his indifference and disdain to the suffering of the less fortunate.

    With Walter read, there were no elections and he's a lame duck, so he didnt even bother to go through the pretense of a photo op.

    ReplyDelete
  146. No wonder the Iraqi's want to expell us from their country, who would want a foreign power controlling their most valuable resource.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Well, Iraq is raising fuel prices...and oil leaped over $61 a barrel...looks like meat's back on the menu, boys.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Anonymous9:25 AM

    Oh god,oh no,it cant be.....the oil spike is upon us,start hoarding candles,buy a horse,chop up some firewood,get a wagon and for god sake arm youself.This is it,Armageddon is just around the corner......and oh yea....THE SKY IS FALLING....RUN!RUN!RUN!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  149. I think its time to delete Crusty Shackleturd and make the idiot just as irrelevant and insignificant as it is in real life.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Carl, I think oil will be back over $70 by May, I think its starting to run up now because of several things, probably the cold snap is diverting more oil to distillates/heating oil, plus a lot of the refineries start switching over to their summer blend or doing maintenance in anticipation of the switchover, plus there was a recent refinery fire.

    Once May hits we are in the Sumer driving/travel season and gas always goes up.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Is Dick Cheney a lying hippocrite......................we all KNOW the answer, but lets see yet another example of our lying hippocritical fool of a VP in action shall we?

    ReplyDelete
  152. Cheney rips China’s anti-satellite weapons test
    Vice president says military buildup ‘not consistent’ with peaceful goals

    AP Updated: 5:26 a.m. MT Feb 23, 2007
    SYDNEY, Australia - "China’s recent anti-satellite weapons test and its continued military buildup are “not consistent” with its stated aim of a peaceful rise as a global power, Vice President Dick Cheney said Friday

    Cheney/Washinton said "the test — which made China only the third nation after the United States and Russia to use weapons beyond the atmosphere — undermined efforts to keep weapons out of space. Beijing countered by saying the United States is blocking a possible global treaty that would ban weapons in space."

    So the Bush admin is whining that China's test undermines efforts to keep weapons out of space, when they themselves are blocking a possible global treaty that would ban weapons in space.

    So like usual the Bush Administration are being hippocrits and saying do as I say not as I do, they want to be dictators that do as they please and defie laws and international treaties at will but yet seek to control and dictate what others do like true authoritarian dictators.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Mike, hasn't Bushivism always been based on 'do what I say, not what I do' on every front?

    ReplyDelete
  154. Dick Cheney is crying like the hypocritical baby he is over a satellite test while the Bushco criminal administration is trying to test a 700ton bomb to get around the nuke test ban, gutless coward he is he lies with such ease.

    He wants NEW nukes for his criminal empire to use but decries anybody else trying to defend themselves from his aggression.

    It's like he asked for 5% deferments to HIDE from war personally but screams now for more troops more killing and more blood today.

    TOTAL HYPICRISSY CHENEY, the lying dead eye foole.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Anonymous said...
    Oh god,oh no,it cant be.....the oil spike is upon us,start hoarding candles,buy a horse,chop up some firewood,get a wagon and for god sake arm youself.This is it,Armageddon is just around the corner......and oh yea....THE SKY IS FALLING....RUN!RUN!RUN!!!!


    Dude, one time you're going to be proven you're an idiot.

    Oh. Wait. That's happened already to you, hasn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  156. Dead eye just MIGHT not get his war with Iran after all. (He can't fire Gates, only georgie can do that, I wonder if Bush will side with Gates(daddy's man) or the lying hypocrite he listened to about Iraq and got him in the current fiasco?

    TPM Reader WB flags this passage in a piece just out from the Times of London ...

    But there are deep fissures within the US Administration. Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, who has previously called for direct talks with Tehran, is said to be totally opposed to military action.

    Although he has dispatched a second US aircraft carrier to the Gulf, he is understood to believe that airstrikes would inflame Iranian public opinion and hamper American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. One senior adviser to Mr Gates has even stated privately that military action could lead to Congress impeaching Mr Bush.


    A bit further down there's this ...

    The hawks are led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who is urging Mr Bush to keep the military option “on the table”. He is also pressing the Pentagon to examine specific war plans — including, it is rumoured, covert action.

    -- Josh Marshall

    ReplyDelete
  157. In For the Long Haul

    The Petraeus plan will have U.S. forces deployed in Iraq for years to come. Does anybody running for president realize that?

    The British are leaving, the Iraqis are failing and the Americans are staying—and we’re going to be there a lot longer than anyone in Washington is acknowledging right now. As Democrats and Republicans back home try to outdo each other with quick-fix plans for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and funds, what few people seem to have noticed is that Gen. David Petraeus’s new “surge” plan is committing U.S. troops, day by day, to a much deeper and longer-term role in policing Iraq than since the earliest days of the U.S. occupation. How long must we stay under the Petraeus plan? Perhaps 10 years. At least five. In any case, long after George W. Bush has returned to Crawford, Texas, for good.

    But don’t take my word for it. I’m merely a messenger for a coterie of counterinsurgency experts who have helped to design the Petraeus plan—his so-called “dream team”—and who have discussed it with NEWSWEEK, usually on condition of anonymity, owing to the sensitivity of the subject. To a degree little understood by the U.S. public, Petraeus is engaged in a giant “do-over.” It is a near-reversal of the approach taken by Petraeus’s predecessor as commander of multinational forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, until the latter was relieved in early February, and most other top U.S. commanders going back to Rick Sanchez and Tommy Franks. Casey sought to accelerate both the training of Iraqi forces and American withdrawal. By 2008, the remaining 60,000 or so U.S. troops were supposed to be hunkering down in four giant “superbases,” where they would be relatively safe. Under Petraeus’s plan, a U.S. military force of 160,000 or more is setting up hundreds of “mini-forts” all over Baghdad and the rest of the country, right in the middle of the action. The U.S. Army has also stopped pretending that Iraqis—who have failed to build a credible government, military or police force on their own—are in the lead when it comes to kicking down doors and keeping the peace. And that means the future of Iraq depends on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago. “We’re putting down roots,” says Philip Carter, a former U.S. Army captain who returned last summer from a year of policing and training in the hot zone around Baquba. “The Americans are no longer willing to accept failure in order to put Iraqis in the lead. You can’t let the mission fail just for the sake of diplomacy.”


    Time to sign Jenna and NOT Jenna up along with the gutless cowards who call themselves college re-pubies, so Bushco criminal empire will have enough troops for Petraeus, for his LONG TERM SURGE PLAN.

    BTW since Petraeus is going this route shouldn't CONGRESS have to authorize the complete change in strategy and use of US forces with a NEW WAR, especially since Saddam is gone and the WMD's did not exist so the original AUMF has been completed, and this plan should need a NEW AUMF, which congress needs to authorize a decades long commitment of troops.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Yes TomCat - that's the definition of Bushivism.

    I just did an interview for Steve Kelly's show on KABC Talk Radio in Palm Springs. It will air on Monday.

    Tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. PST, I'm co-hosting a live show with Doug Basham. We're interviewing former Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega about her new book: U.S. vs Bush: The Case for Impeachment.

    Please tune in live AM 1230 KLAV in Las Vegas or on the web: http://bashamandcornell.com/

    I'll post this info in the main thread today.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Thank you for tuning in and for all of your brilliant comments!
    Luv xo
    Lyd

    ReplyDelete
  160. God Bless New Zealand at least they seem to have a grasp on the situation.................

    ReplyDelete
  161. Thanks Lydia. I put it into my PIM to make sure I hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  162. New thread is up, please try to tune in tomorrow morning and hear this great interview with Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega.

    We will be offline in the afternoon, sorry. We are moving.

    ReplyDelete