This week we watched a vote pass on the Lieberman/Kyl "Sense of the Senate" bill which is essentially giving Bush authorization to attack Iran without Congressional approval.
Although a "Sense of the "Senate bill has no legal authorization, it does give Bush and those desiring a war with Iran a wink of approval once he makes that move. This bill wasn't even debated, but swiftly introduced and voted on.
What is interesting to note that one of the Democrats voting in support of this bill was Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Hillary has often said she will end the war in Iraq if she is elected President. Her vote on this "Sense of the Senate" bill tells otherwise.
During the Democratic debate this week the vote on Iran was a hot topic. John Edwards stood out of the mix by taking Hillary on for her vote on this issue. This response gives clear reason why Edwards should be heavily considered;
I voted for this war in Iraq, and I was wrong to vote for this war. And I accept responsibility for that. Senator Clinton also voted for this war.
We learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran.
And I think that vote today, which Senator Biden and Senator Dodd voted against, and they were correct to vote against it, is a clear indication of the approach that all of us would take with the situation in Iran because what I learned in my vote on Iraq was you cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted.
Edwards articulated an important difference he has with Clinton, and it's a difference that all voters, not just Democrats, should grasp. This commanding debate performance and that answer in particular, Edwards solidified his status as Clinton's main challenger.
One of the most important things in life is to learn from our mistakes and strive to not make them again. Hillary has shown by her "Sense of the Senate" vote that she took no lesson from the Iraq war.
I voted for this war in Iraq, and I was wrong to vote for this war. And I accept responsibility for that. Senator Clinton also voted for this war.
We learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran.
John Edwards
September 26, 2007
John Edwards learned that lesson and the mark of a great leader is to not repeat the same disastrous mistakes over again. John Edwards gave Hillary and the world a real "Sense of the Senate" with his stance on Iran.
Edwards had a good line which poured the face of reality of just who Hillary Clinton is.
ReplyDelete"It's not the way America has handled the war, it's the way George Bush has handled it," Jamie Foxx said. "I think George Bush and the guys that are there, just don't have the charisma to pull off the things that they're trying to do. I can understand if you want to go to war, but how do you go to war? They go to war in a high-risk, high-return or high-risk, no return in this situation.
ReplyDeleteTell it like it is Jamie!
A recently-unearthed video from 1992 shows Vice President Dick Cheney predicting the mess that occupying Iraq would create:
ReplyDeleteIf you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I'd probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home...The bottom line question for me was: How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? The answer: not very damn many.
They why are we there losing thousands!
After we're quagmired in Iran, Hillary and the other invertebrates will be saying "I voted for the Iranian invasion before I voted against it."
ReplyDeleteWho Hijacked Our Country
Good one Tom. Hillary wants it both ways.
ReplyDelete(Reuters) - Democrat John Edwards would like to focus his presidential campaign on change in Washington but Hillary Clinton keeps getting in the way.
ReplyDeleteIn challenging the front-runner, the former North Carolina senator inevitably finds his own political vision becomes secondary to his differences with Clinton, a New York senator and former first lady.
The sustained focus on Clinton seemed to irritate Edwards in an interview with Reuters, and his voice hardened as he faced questions about her rather than his own positions.
"I want to be certain that voters understand that they have a choice," Edwards said. "I just think there are important choices for voters to make between myself and Senator Clinton."
Edwards trails in third place, according to the latest Reuters/Zogby poll which showed Clinton with 35 percent and Sen. Barack Obama with 25 percent among Democrats seeking their party nomination for the November 2008 presidential election.
But the contrasts between Edwards and Clinton earned him plaudits for his performance in a Democratic candidates' debate Wednesday in the early-voting state of New Hampshire.
"Edwards has a knack for coming off earnest and high-minded even when he's knee-capping an opponent," senior editor Noam Scheiber wrote in The New Republic.
On a Newsweek blog, chief political correspondent Howard Fineman described Edwards, who was the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's failed 2004 presidential bid, as Clinton's "most forceful challenger."
Edwards is much better than the war loving Hillary.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich says he is so concerned about what he sees as the Bush administration's push for a war with Iran that he is considering using a parliamentary measure to force the House of Representatives to vote on impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney.
ReplyDelete"We're preparing for another war, and they're going to destroy America," the Ohio Democrat said Thursday on the Ed Schultz show. "We have a government in place right now that has to be challenged. I'm seriously thinking about calling a privileged resolution on impeachment of the vice president and forcing a vote on the floor of the House."
A privileged resolution would force the full House to debate about whether to proceed with impeachment, but it remains unclear precisely how, when or whether Kucinich would be able to introduce such a resolution. Privileged measures "may be called up on the floor whenever another measure is not already pending" and the House agrees to consider it, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Privileged measures can include questions of House privileges or resolutions of inquiry, according to the CRS report.
At last a true leader!
Hillary may get her wish:
ReplyDeleteThe US military is building a base in Iraq just five miles from the border with Iran to prevent cross-border arms smuggling. The base, called "Combat Outpost Shocker," will be manned by 200 soldiers, along with agents from the US Border Patrol, and will monitor truck traffic and cellphone conversations among Shi'ite pilgrims.
"Obviously, [the Iranians] probably won't be very happy about it," Col. Mark Mueller, the commander of the border transition team, told ABC News.
Border security has been essentially ignored since the US invasion of Iraq, but the establishment of the base at this time is also seen as targeting what the US claims are Iranian attempts to smuggle advanced arms to Iraqi insurgents. The Associated Press, however, concludes that it is likely to be a drop in the bucket when dealing with a 900-mile long border where smuggling is a centuries-old way of life.
In a telephone conversation with RAW STORY earlier this month, Steve Clemons, director of the American Strategy Program at New America Foundation and publisher of The Washington Note said his gravest concern surrounding Iran was that the US might seize on an accidental incident -- such as a collision between a US and Iranian ship or a border skirmish between Iraq and Iran -- as a casus belli.
"A mistake in the Gulf where ships collide or US soldiers are attacked or Israel fires a low-level cruise missile attack against Natanz or there's a border skirmish between Iraq and Iran that results in the death of a high-ranking military or diplomatic official – any of these could spark a conflict," he said.
The Senate agreed on Thursday to increase the federal debt limit by $850 billion -- from $8.965 trillion to $9.815 trillion -- and then proceeded to approve a stop-gap spending bill that gives the Bush White House at least $9 billion in new funding for its war in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the administration has been given emergency authority to tap further into a $70 billion "bridge fund" to provide new infusions of money for the occupation while the Congress works on appropriations bills for the Department of Defense and other agencies.
Translation: Under the guise of a stop-gap spending bill that is simply supposed to keep the government running until a long-delayed appropriations process is completed -- probably in November -- the Congress has just approved a massive increase in war funding.
Always in the middle of the night.
The leading Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, steadfastly refused as recently as Sunday's round of talk shows to promise that all U.S. forces would be withdrawn if she is elected.
ReplyDelete"I'm not going to get into hypotheticals and make pledges," Clinton said Sunday. "I don't want to speculate about how we're going to be approaching it until I actually have the facts in my hand and the authority to be able to make some decisions."
Then why should we vote for you?
Too bad Edwards didn't give Hillary a kick in her behind with an admonishment to drop her bullshit about the troops coming home by the end of her first tern (2012.)
ReplyDeleteChristopher:
ReplyDeleteHillary has bragged all year that she would end the war and bring the troops home.
Now we see she wants more wars.
The numbers are so staggering that they are hard to process mentally and impossible to process logistically: each month some 60,000 Iraqis are voting with their feet against the surge of U.S. forces by fleeing their homes. Since the invasion, more than 2.5 million Iraqis have left for neighboring countries, while 2.2 million have been forcibly displaced within Iraq - too poor to escape the country or blocked from transitioning through more peaceful provinces, which in recent months have erected checkpoints to keep them out. To put it in stark historical terms: the war has created the largest refugee crisis in the Middle East since the displacement of the Palestinians in 1948.
ReplyDeleteHere is what it looks like on the ground: in two short years, a million Iraqi refugees have poured into Syria, a country of 19 million. In U.S.-population terms, this would be the equivalent of 15 million Iraqis arriving on our shores. Overwhelmed by the deluge, Syria has said it will begin requiring visas for Iraqis next month, the practical equivalent of shutting its doors, while Jordan, which has admitted 750,000 Iraqis, closed most of its border crossings earlier this year.
Despite all this, the U.S. debate about withdrawal from Iraq seems remarkably indifferent to those whose lives have been upended. The Bush Administration talks of staying the course without expending nearly enough political or financial capital to mitigate the humanitarian catastrophe that it pretends does not exist. Many advocates of withdrawal point to the humanitarian disaster as a ground for leaving without addressing how worse suffering might be averted.
Isn't it time to make those who desire war flee their jobs.
I disagree.
ReplyDeleteThe bill had at its heart the notion that to declare Iran a terrorist state would allow us to move in the UN towards sanctions.
Which I wholeheartedly agree with. Yes, it also opened the door, a crack, towards unilateral action against Iran, but I seriously doubt even Bush is moronic enough to go there in the last year of his term.
No Gore. No vote.
ReplyDeleteIt's as simple as that.
If Gore doesn't run than I won't be casting my vote for any of them.
Christopher:
ReplyDeleteI thought one of Gore's assistants said he was going to make a decision in October, but Gore has mainly been out of the spotlight except his speech at the U.N.
Carl:
ReplyDeleteWhat bothers me is Bush could very well get a real bill on this passed, since this "Sense of the Senate" passed by such a wide margin.
Larry said...
ReplyDeleteCarl:
What bothers me is Bush could very well get a real bill on this passed, since this "Sense of the Senate" passed by such a wide margin."
He doesnt NEED another Bill now...........this idiotic vote muddied the waters sufficiently to make charging him with war crimes and treason for attacking Iran difficult after Clinton and many of the Democrats just went on record designating it a terrorist organization and saying that actions to oppose them are JUSTIFIED.
Think about that one for a minute, there is a built in defense for Bush and the Neo Cons just like their is for Iraq...........all the fascists have to say is we THOUGHT at the time that Iran was developing nukes and killing American soldiers and YOU voted to give us the authority to do something about it...........so either you have poor judgement or you supported what we were doing.
Mike:
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be surprised if Bush doesn't say he had authorization with this vote and do it anyway.
A front page story in Friday's New York Times takes a peek at the large number of disgraced lawmakers who have, at one time or another, anchored their yachts at "a 'floating trailer park' where everyone knows everyone else’s business," yet "neighbors tend not to discuss what they see and hear."
ReplyDelete"When he is not at the Capitol, Senator Larry E. Craig spends much of his time aboard the Suz II, the 42-foot yacht that serves as his Washington home," Marilyn W. Thompson writes for the paper. "Further down D Dock at the Capital Yacht Club, his friend Senator Ted Stevens occasionally escapes the pressures of a federal investigation aboard his pleasure boat."
The article continues, "Former Representative Randy Cunningham, Republican of California, used to reside a few slips over on the Duke Stir before federal investigators built a bribery case against him. And at the Gangplank Marina next door, the disgraced congressmen Bob Ney, a Republican, and James A. Traficant Jr., a Democrat, both from Ohio, traded coveted slips for federal prison cells in bribery cases."
Thompson takes readers into a world where "[p]rotected by locked gates and security, members of Congress rub elbows with lawyers and lobbyists, judges and bureaucrats, established government contractors and aspiring ones, and others lucky enough to own expensive boats and secure a coveted slip."
Republicans in Congress rich in their vessels of the sea.
By Juan Cole
ReplyDeleteI made two claims about the transcript published by El Pais of Bush’s conversations with Spanish leader Jose Maria Aznar on 22 February, 2003, at Crawford, Texas.
The first is that the transcript shows that Bush intended to disregard a negative outcome in his quest for a UN Security Council resolution authorizing a war against Iraq. Bush wanted such a resolution. He expressed a willingness to use threats and economic coercion to secure it. But he makes it perfectly clear that he will not wait for the UNSC to act beyond mid-March. He also explicitly says that if any of the permanent members of the UNSC uses its veto, “we will go.” That is, failure to secure the resolution would trigger the war.
This shows Bush will disregard anything the U.N says.
Lydia
ReplyDeleteAn attack on Iran was a foregone conclusion years ago and it will happen. Whoever voted for what does not matter. The damage is done, bush is in the middle east, and he will not leave until he attacks Iran. This will soon get a lot worse.
I am wondering what happens if China stops buying Bush's debt? I am of the frame of mind that China has more power to stop Bush than anyone else and they are letting him hang us. What do you think?
Patriot:
ReplyDeleteI think China and Russia will intervene against the U.S if the dictator attacks Iran.
Maybe this will explain the "Sense of Senate" vote:
ReplyDeleteFrom the Asian Times, regarding the passage of the Kyl-Liberman amendment:
But its huge margin of approval, which some observers said was boosted by this week’s controversial visit to New York by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, helped demonstrate once again how responsive members of both major parties are to the so-called “Israel lobby”, which has made the sanctions bill its top legislative priority this year.
Rabbi Michael Lerner has a long article regarding Israel Lobbyists and their influence on the U.S. congress. From the article:
To take an example from these past few months of the Israel Lobby exercising its power, liberals in the House of Representatives in the spring of 2007 sought to include in the defense-funding budget an amendment that would require specific authorization from Congress before the Administration could use the defense budget monies for a military strike at Iran. The amendment failed. Most liberals in the U.S. today oppose preventive wars in general and a military strike against Iran in particular. So who supports such a move? The answer is: the right wing government of Israel and its champion in the U.S., the Israel Lobby.
At the meeting I was at, every Member of Congress tried to explain why Nancy Pelosi would never let me address the Democratic Caucus of the House (at that time, the minority caucus): House Democrats are too fearful of what AIPAC might do in response. I told these Members of Congress that I didn’t believe them; that I thought that House of Representative liberals were just pretending to be fearful of AIPAC in order to avoid a battle and stand up publicly for Tikkun’s middle path position. But then they began to tell me specific stories from their own experience of the threats they had received from the Israel Lobby people about being labeled as “anti-Israel.” They told me stories of it being impossible to convene a private meeting of Democrats who would want to challenge the Israel Lobby because when they had tried that they had found that every name of the attendees was in the hands of AIPAC lobbyists within an hour of the conclusion of that meeting and many of the attendees had been subject to immediate and intense pressure as though they had decided to abandon Israel (which they had not, nor is that what Tikkun calls for).
Larry
ReplyDeleteYou know I agree with you that is why once the entire middle east is embroiled the entire world will get involved in Bush's forever war!
I know what you are saying but I absolutely believe attacking Iran is a foregfone conclusion, only one of the reasons he attacked Iraq to get us into the middle east, and it will happen regardless of who okays what. He will underhandedly find a way around everyone to do what he wants to the worlds demise.
Jim:
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that Bush will attack Iran before spring and very probably sooner.
He obviously cares less about the repercussions, his arrogance thinks he has conquered the world.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm hearing is Camp Gore has cleared the "Goreacle's" calendar for the entire month of October.
He's to receive the Nobel Peace Prize on I think the date is Oct. 12th, or 14th.
Then, well, fingers are crossed.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteHave you guys considered coming over to Wordpress?
I started out on Blogger and quickly learned to hate it. I moved my entire blog to Wordpress (a simple import process) and I never looked back.
Wordpress is so much easier to manipulate than Blogger and best of all, they have customer support!
Christopher:
ReplyDeleteI was wondering since he has been silent recently.
That would be a good surprise for Hillary.
Christopher:
ReplyDeleteI hate blogger also but I think Lydia is going in a direction where she has total control of her blog and not dependent on blogger or any other.
Lydia will be better off with her own system.
Larry
ReplyDeleteThat is interesting about Gore. You have read some of my stuff. I have been saying for quite a while now that it will be this fall and everything short of the refuelers on Diego Garcia are in place.
Many at kos have been peeved at me especially saying Israel will be the excuse and that is the way it's looking. I wrote another controversial story over there today calling them trolls because they lauughed at Anon's story and your list without even looking at them.
Anyway, Both my sons are home for now at least will until June and Jim goes back to Itaq. I have to wonder what Bush's middle east breakdown will look like in a year?
Lydia will be better off with her own system.
ReplyDeleteI'm agog. Let me know how this works.
The only 2 Democrats that anyone should be considering for President is John Edwards, and Mike Gravel.
ReplyDeleteThe rest are moral cowards and or culprits in murder.
Two days ago, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass the Lieberman\Kyl act.
This act labels Iran's "Islamic Revolutionary Gaurd" a "terrorist organization".
Since previous legislation handed the President Bush has unlimited power to go after any organizations deemed "Terrorist Organizations", congress just handed President Bush full authorization to Invade Iran.
Just like they did in 2003.
The only two democrats running for president who voted against it were John Edwards and Mike Gravel.
They are the ONLY two who deserve ANY support, to become President.
And I am ready to announce where my support may or may not lie.
ReplyDeleteRight now, given the field, my support is torn between John Edwards, and Ron Paul.
I need to hear more from both of these men, but right now, they're the only two candidates in both parties who deserve support (that actually have a chance to win, sorry Mike Gravel, luv ya though).
But know this.
ReplyDeleteWe ARE going to war with Iran.
How Bush pulled this off, I don't know, but clearly the Democrats are either in bed with him, or hes' got something on them.
Because they voted OVERWHELMINGLY to give the President FULL AUTHORITY to invade Iran in ANY way he sees fit.
Just like they did in 2003, even though all of them, including Hilary claimed they would not have done if they "knew what they know now".
The democrats in the Senate are done. Finished. No one should ever vote for another one of them. Hilary should not only lose the DNC bid, she should lose her seat, as should Barak Obama, who chickened out on the vote.
They're ALL TALK, and ZERO ACTION.
John Edwards?
WELL DONE!
Ok, this is weird.
ReplyDeleteI didn't even read the article when I posted that. I just came in and started posting.
But now I've read the article Lydia, and this article is first rate and right on the money.
John Edwards is showing me something. He is showing me that he has the ability to "move and adapt", and he has the humility to admit when he was wrong, and change course. Those are not just good traits for a president, we have learned from George Bush, that they are ESSENTIAL traits to being a president.
Of course the greatest presidents all possessed these traits. Lincoln, Kennedy, even Washington.
The ability to recognize when you're wrong, and correct it, is critical to success in ANY field.
Sorry for this being off topic, however it seems that I want to leave a response for Carl in regards to his response to mine on the last thread.
ReplyDeleteCarl...
I wasn't implying that the FCC and the AF.MIL were watching me. I know that one generally wouldn't know if one was being watched.
However, I do get some visits where everything shows up as unknown.
Domain, ISP, Location etc...etc...etc...
Now I had a really busy day on my sight today from what I seen. It appears that someone left my link on FDL and a lot have come over to see what I have up.
Very few have however read the posts or checked the links out.
Also my link was again mentioned on another blog and I had a few of them stop by.
The funniest though is I just had a visit from Washington DC and it was the Internal Revnue Service.
I suppose I'll be investigated now if the IRS is visiting me.
Anyway sorry to go off topic on your new thread Lydia. I was off line yesterday and will have too catch up on everyones sites.
Take care and...
God Bless.
John Edwards may yet win my full and unfettered support.
ReplyDeleteRight now for me, its between John Edwards and Ron Paul.
IF neither of them makes it past the primaries, then the smartest thing they could do, is get together, and run on a 3rd party ticket. Edwards would be crazy at this point to drop out of this race if Hilary or Obama beats them to the DNC nod, then he should run independent.
BARTLEBEE said...
ReplyDeleteJohn Edwards may yet win my full and unfettered support.
Right now for me, its between John Edwards and Ron Paul.
IF neither of them makes it past the primaries, then the smartest thing they could do, is get together, and run on a 3rd party ticket. Edwards would be crazy at this point to drop out of this race if Hilary or Obama beats them to the DNC nod, then he should run independent."
Edwards ALLREADY has my support................as for the rest of what you said, I couldnt agree more!
John Edwards is the best one running, and he had the guts and smarts to admit he was wrong to vote for Bush's war.
ReplyDeleteBARTLEBEE said...
ReplyDeleteThe only 2 Democrats that anyone should be considering for President is John Edwards, and Mike Gravel.
The rest are moral cowards and or culprits in murder.
Two days ago, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass the Lieberman\Kyl act.
This act labels Iran's "Islamic Revolutionary Gaurd" a "terrorist organization".
Since previous legislation handed the President Bush has unlimited power to go after any organizations deemed "Terrorist Organizations", congress just handed President Bush full authorization to Invade Iran.
Just like they did in 2003.
The only two democrats running for president who voted against it were John Edwards and Mike Gravel.
They are the ONLY two who deserve ANY support, to become President."
We have a crime syndicate in the White House and the only ones opposing them are a bunch of toothless lemmings that dont deserve to be in a leadership position because they ARE NOT capable of learning from past mistakes its 2002 all over again.
The Democrats should be drummed out of power.............we need populists/progressives like Edwards or Gore that will give us the change we NEED and put us on the right path.
Lydia's absolutely right Edwards made Hillary look like the smarmy doubletalking hippocrite she truly is!
ReplyDeletePelosi and Reid are no better than Lieberman and they need to be run out of office, both likeLieberman are Bush enablers.
ReplyDeleteMike:
ReplyDeleteDid you see on the debates how Edwards made Hillary look?
She looked pathetic.
David Letterman on Thursday announced a segment on "George Bush vs. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," promising also that each joke "will be punctuated with a ridiculous sound effect."
ReplyDeleteAlong with celebrity gags and jokes playing off the Iranian president's popular image as a bloodthirsty tyrant, some of the more interesting comparisons were:
"Ahmadinejad: Member of the Islamic Society of Engineers. Bush: Member of the Chuck Norris fan club."
"Ahmadinejad: Speaks in broken, hard-to-understand English. Bush: Speaks in broken, hard-to-understand English."
"Ahmadinejad: Holocaust denier. Bush: Global warning denier."
And finally, "Ahmadinejad: Underlings refer to him as President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Bush: Underlings refer to him as 'President Numbnuts.'"
Good analogy.
And for the record I do beleive what was posted about AIPAC, that Idiot Troll Tex dried that BS rhetoric with Me, Clif and Lydia.................the dumb as dirt troll kept asking me and Clif if we love Israel and if we would support nuking Iran pre-emptively for Israel.
ReplyDeleteHe also was trying to get his troll buddies to start calling Lydia Antisemetic just like he was doing to Clif and I...............he CLAIMED it is a death sentence to label a celebrity or public figure as Antisemetic.
Lydia's absolutely right Edwards made Hillary look like the smarmy doubletalking hippocrite she truly is!
ReplyDeleteROFLMAO! Yeah, a perfect description of Queen Hillary of AIPAC.
Didnt see the entire debate...........but I DID see that exchange and Edwards was GREAT he exposed her for the lying doubletalker she is...........Hillary will say or do ANYTHING to be president she craves the power...........Hillary is John McCaine in a skirt!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Christopher that Hillary is the queen of AIPAC.
ReplyDeleteQueen Hillary is swiftly losing votes...............now neither Christopher, Bartlebe nor myself will vote for her and I think Larry might be opposed to her as well..................Edwards should run as an independent in a 3 way race with the current issues we face he actually has a chance.
ReplyDeleteI am for Edwards and can't stomach the war loving Hillary.
ReplyDeleteI think after the last year, your going to start seeing many more independents running Against Democrats.
ReplyDeleteI hope they do and I hope those like Pelosi and Reid are the first to be voted out.
ReplyDeleteThe 2 parties should change their symbols from Elephants and Donkeys to fascist swastikas and Lemmings.............they would be much more appropriate to the times.
ReplyDeleteI agree Mike and maybe they should merge since they both seem to have the same agenda, and it isn't what's best for the people.
ReplyDeleteI saw the exchange between Hilary and Edwards, and Edwards cleaned her clock.
ReplyDeleteBartlebee:
ReplyDeleteHillary had that look like she was caught stealing.
He just needs to find his sea legs now. He needs a little more confidence, a little more assertiveness, and a little more Ron Paul\Ralph Nader logic.
ReplyDeleteIf he finds his sea legs, he's gonna make a fine President.
He could be another JFK.
Of course guys, we might not be having elections next year.
ReplyDeleteMy predictions of impeachment are starting to look more and more like wishful thinking, and I seriously think we're heading for Martial law.
I hope Edwards didn't mess up announcing he was taking public financing instead of getting all he could like Hillary and Obama.
ReplyDeleteBartlebee:
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Martial Law. There has to be someone beside Kucinich to challenge him before impeachment is a posibility.
A 3rd party can REALLY focus on the issues because they dont have to pander to the corporate interests for campaign contributions and funding.
ReplyDeleteIn this election the issues are HUGE because both parties are ignoring and spitting on the best interests and will of the American People.
Nope.
ReplyDeleteThe thing thats gonna make Edwards win is stuff just like that.
Congress has been talking the talk and we're sick of them not walking the walk.
He needs to walk the talk.
And by his WISE and PRUDENT vote on Wednesday, to NOT give the idiot Bush carte blanche to invade Iran.
Edwards did clean Hillarys Clock................but like i've been saying for years now..................thats not hard if your opponent has in indefendable position!
ReplyDeleteOf the two DNC Presidential candidates, only He and Gravel voted AGAINST giving Bush the same power over Iran, that they gave him over Iraq in 03.
ReplyDeleteObama didn't show up to vote on the Iran bill and Reid didn't vote.
ReplyDeleteBoth copouts.
I'm afraid the time has come to pray fellas.
ReplyDeleteI think the time for impeachment is has probably past. Bush now has FULL and UNFETTERED authority to wage war on Iran. The authority they gave him Wednesday, was absolutely unlimited.
Even more unlimited than the act to invade Iraq.
Bush is free to start WW3 now, and since Congress just proved they are FULLY COMPLICIT, or afraid for some reason, and handed over power after SWEARING THEY LEARNED THEIR LESSON IN 03, without batting an eye.
The vote was not just a majority.
It was an OVERWHELMING majority!
If memory serves me correct it was like 75 to 14.
The time has passed to wish for legislation to save us. The legislators are in cahoots with the Fuhrer, and theres not much we can do.
I think this is out of Americans hands now. I think the people who will reign in this apocolyptic reichstag run amuck, are from without, not within.
ReplyDeleteChina and Russia are egging for a fight, ever since the little bully brute started calling everyone evil, and pushing his army around the middle east.
The European Union is sick of war and the whole idea was on Europe, without war and with utter prosperity for all.
So the EU, Russia, and China, may be this nations best hope of ever realizing that we are not the boss of the world, just because a handful of us got killed on 911.
How can the Democrats cry they didn't know Bush was going to attack Iran, when they voted for it again, just like Iraq?
ReplyDeleteFrom TP.
ReplyDeleteRight-Wing New York Sun Declares: ‘Attack On Iran Said To Be Imminent’
The New York Sun, a reliable neoconservative outlet that has advocated for a Dick Cheney presidential campaign, declares today: “Attack on Iran Said To Be Imminent.” The article’s lead states:
I believe the article from TP. I wonder if it will be spring or Christmas.
ReplyDeleteTonight on Real Time with Bill Maher, Bill will be interviewing award-winning filmmaker Ken Burns about his new PBS documentary The War and CNBC news Anchor Maria Bartiromo will discuss the economy.
ReplyDeleteOn the panel will be Georgetown professor and author Michael Eric Dyson, former editor of the New York Post and New York Daily News Pete Hamill, and Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL).
Rahm Emanuel is another Hillary phony.
It looks like WW3, and martial law, but then it has for 6 months now.
ReplyDeleteI think our only hope now is either for the military to refuse their order and declare them unfit to lead our nation or for China and Russia to take action like Bartlebe says.
I think China will inflict pain swiftly by dumping our dollars AND CALLING IN THE DEBT IF bUSH ATTACKS iRAN.
Wait till the economy falls completely apart and Bush's desire will be complete.
ReplyDeleteCheck out Patriots latest post:
ReplyDeleteAn Average American Patriot
Hitler invaded Poland, because a single polish worker was found in the Reichstag after the fire. He declared Poland a terrorist state, and told the German people that he had to fight them there, so they would’t have to fight them at home.
ReplyDeleteIn August of 1939, Hitler invaded the comparitively speaking defensless nation of Poland, expecting an easy victory, and at first, just like he expected, he did get his easy victory. With the help of then his friends, the Russians, he overran the entire country within 60 days, or just about two months after he went in.
But then, something unexpected happened. Having never officially “surrenderd”, the polish people “resisted” Hitlers occupying forces, using “improvised explosives” and homemade bombs, and staged small arms attacks.
This resistence never ended, and Hitler never acheived what could be conceived as “victory” in Poland.
In March 2003, anticipating an overwhelming victory, Bush using the attacks of Saudi Arabian Terrorists 2 years earlier, and falsely tying Iraq and the Iraqi government to the attacks by the Saudi’s and the UAE terrorists, Bush launched an overwhelming invasion of the tiny, defenseless nation of Iraq. And it looked at first like he’d have his victory. Bush’s army overran Iraq within 60 days, or just about two months after he went in. On May 1’st Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” and victory was acheived.
But then, something not so unexpected happened. Having never officially “surrenderd”, the Iraqi people “resisted” Bush’s occupying forces, using “improvised explosives” and homemade bombs, and staged small arms attacks.
This resistence never ended, and Bush never acheived what could be conceived as “victory” in Iraq.
:|
Iraq IS Bush’s Poland.
And I'm afraid Iran will be his Russian Front.
ReplyDeleteJust like Hitler led Germany down the path of destruction, thus is Bush doing the same to the U.S.
ReplyDeleteHow dumb do they think people are:
ReplyDeleteThe US military command in Iraq says a key al Qaida operative was killed in Iraq today. "Abu Osama al-Tunisi was one of the most senior leaders ... the emir of foreign terrorists in Iraq and part of the inner leadership circle", says Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson.
Not surprisingly, as ThinkProgress reports, al-Tunisi also apparently died last year.
--Josh Marshall
These thugs have had these plans for a VERY long time there are rumors PNACs plans date back to the 1970's.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyone remember Ann Coulters response too Lydia two years ago around the time the blog started.............she said "and I didnt even tell her about the concentration camps we have in store for liberals" Coulter then later advocated nuking iran and Syria.
Well Guess what NOW Bush actually has concentration camps to house some estimate close to 10 million people with one in Alaska that can house 2 million alone........ask yourself WHY we need concentration camps to hold almost 10 million prisoners, Why Bush is obsessed with nuking iran and why he is isuing Executive orders to declare martial law, imprison American Citizens and seize and confiscate their assets on a whim.
I think he will start seizing peoples assets when China dumps the dollar..........he'll need that to fund the war machine and pay his Blackwater Brownshirts.
Blackwater will be his Gestapo force since any mercenary goes where the money flows, not with loyalty.
ReplyDeleteThere won't be a quagmire in Iran. We'll get repulsed out fairly quickly. And as an added plus, our troops in Iraq will face the full force of Iraqi Shi'ite violence.
ReplyDeleteI dont think even Bush or Cheney would be dumb enough to try and occupy Iran JR..................I think they just want to nuke and bomb it enough to destabilize it so the government could be overthrown and a puppet loyal to the Neo Cons installed.
ReplyDeleteWhatever his plans Mike, I'm quite concerned that the rest of the region is not going to sit still for it.
ReplyDeleteNo, i'm postive China wont sit back if we attack Iran......at first they may attack us economically but after our military and the resources that fuel it like dollars and oil are depleted they could oppose us militarily in the region..........if they did the whole middle east could rally around them.
ReplyDeleteI just think how different the world would be today if Al Gore was President in 2000 and GWB DIDNT steal the election.... and it disgusts me.
ReplyDeleteYea and they might just decide to take there new Chinese\Russian supermilitary out for a test drive too.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't have to be a world war, and it doesn't have to be an attack on our homeland.
They could just decide to push half to 3 quarters of a million troops into Iran, and drive the American occupiers out, establishing their new role as the new superpower.
I was down in Palm Beach County in November of 2000 after the Election Fiasco, I saw the protesters and quasi riots........and i felt that something dire and sinister was happening..............BUT I gave GWB the benefit of the doubt even at his inaueration when I thought Him and Cheney reminded me of Nazis (even though I couldnt say why, it was just a gut feeling) I said I was going give them the benefit of the doubt but in 2002 after all the lies and nazi propaganda and rhetoric he used to seize power and justify and manipulate us into an occupation of iraw for oil..............I could NO LONGER give them the benefit of the doubt I KNEW we had evil men with evil intent following in Hitlers footsteps to rule the world......I saw a bunch of evil megalomaniacs taking our country down the same ruinous path into the void that Hitler did.
ReplyDeleteThe Powers of misrule may use different names but the tactics are ALWAYS the same.
I was there in Palm Beach County the very day after the 2000 election and it didnt smell right at all.
ReplyDeleteJust like this farce Congress just went through this week.
Hey Mike,
ReplyDeleteYou mean that HUGE 1100 square foot "concentration camp" outside Fairbanks?
I hope those 2 million people like each other a whole lot, cause their gonna be stacked pretty deep.
And Worf, er..I mean "Bartlebee",
Just out of curiosity, in what forum is Edwards "voting" in these days? Last I heard he wasn't currently in congress...
Yeah Volt, Concentration camps usually arent the lap of luxury............and for the record the one in Alaska is alot bigger than 1100 square feet, my old apartment was bigger than that.
ReplyDeleteI did give you credit though in the last blog Volt............You did call that the spineless Democrats would betray us and that there takeover of congress wouldnt mean much.
ReplyDeleteHere Volt Enjoy.....
ReplyDeleteU.S. CONCENTRATION CAMPS
FEMA AND THE REX 84 PROGRAM
BREAKING HURRICANE KATRINA CONSPIRACY STORY!
September 5, 2005:
"I just got back from a FEMA Detainment Camp"
Concentration Camp
There over 600 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States.
The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a mass exodus of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA. Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed down and to be turned into prisons.
Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government. FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation.
The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners. Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold approximately 2 million people.
Camp Perimeter
A person named Terry Kings wrote an article on his discoveries of camps
located in southern California. His findings are as follows:
Over the last couple months several of us have investigated three soon-to-be prison camps in the Southern California area. We had heard about these sites and wanted to see them for ourselves.
The first one we observed was in Palmdale, California. It is not operating as a prison at the moment but is masquerading as part of a water facility. Now why would there be a facility of this nature out in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no prisoners? The fences that run for miles around this large facility all point inward, and there are large mounds of dirt and dry moat surrounding the central area so the inside area is not visible from the road. There are 3 large loading docks facing the entrance that can be observed from the road. What are these massive docks going to be loading?
We observed white vans patrolling the area and one came out and greeted us with a friendly wave and followed us until we had driven safely beyond the area. What would have happened had we decided to enter the open gate or ask questions?
This facility is across the street from the Palmdale Water Department. The area around the Water Department has fences pointing outward, to keep people out of this dangerous area so as not to drown. Yet, across the street, the fences all point inward. Why? To keep people in? What people? Who are going to be it's occupants?
There are also signs posted every 50 feet stating: State of California Trespassing Loitering Forbidden By Law Section 555 California Penal Code.
The sign at the entrance says: Pearblossom Operations and Maintenance Subcenter Receiving Department, 34534 116th Street East. There is also a guard shack located at the entrance.
We didn't venture into this facility, but did circle around it to see if there was anything else visible from the road. We saw miles of fences with the top points all directed inward. There is a railroad track that runs next to the perimeter of this fenced area. The loading docks are large enough to hold railroad cars. [lrec]
I wonder what they are planning for this facility? They could easily fit 100,000 people in this area. And who would the occupants be?
Another site is located in Brand Park in Glendale. There are newly constructed fences (all outfitted with new wiring that point inward). The fences surround a dry reservoir. There are also new buildings situated in the area. We questioned the idea that there were four armed military personnel walking the park. Since when does a public park need armed guards?
A third site visited was in the San Fernando Valley, adjacent to the Water District. Again, the area around the actual Water District had fences logically pointing out (to keep people out of the dangerous area). And the rest of the adjacent area which went on for several miles was ringed with fences and barbed wire facing inward (to keep what or who in?) Also, interesting was the fact that the addition to the tops of the fences were fairly new as to not even contain any sign of rust on them. Within the grounds was a huge building that the guard said was a training range for policemen. There were newly constructed roads, new gray military looking buildings, and a landing strip. For what? Police cars were constantly patrolling the several mile perimeter of the area.
From the parking lot of the Odyssey Restaurant a better view could be taken of the area that was hidden from site from the highway. There was an area that contained about 100 black boxes that looked like railroad cars. We had heard that loads of railroad cars have been manufactured in Oregon outfitted with shackles. Would these be of that nature? From our position it was hard to determine.
In searching the Internet, I have discovered that there are about 600 of these prison sites around the country (and more literally popping up overnight do they work all night). They are manned, but yet do not contain prisoners. Why do they need all these non-operating prisons? What are they waiting for? We continuously hear that our current prisons are overcrowded and they are releasing prisoners because of this situation. But what about all these facilities? What are they really for? Why are there armed guards yet no one to protect themselves against? And what is going to be the kick-off point to put these facilities into operation?
What would bring about a situation that would call into effect the need for these new prison facilities? A man-made or natural catastrophe? An earthquake, panic due to Y2K, a massive poisoning, a panic of such dimensions to cause nationwide panic?
Once a major disaster occurs (whether it is a real event or manufactured event does not matter) Martial Law is hurriedly put in place and we are all in the hands of the government agencies (FEMA) who thus portray themselves as our protectors. Yet what happens when we question those in authority and how they are taking away all of our freedoms? Will we be the ones detained in these camp sites? And who are they going to round up? Those with guns? Those who ask questions? Those that want to know what's really going on? Does that include any of us? The seekers of truth?
When first coming across this information I was in a state of total denial. How could this be? I believed our country was free, and always felt a sense of comfort in knowing that as long as we didn't hurt others in observing our freedom we were left to ourselves. Ideally we treated everyone with respect and honored their uniqueness and hoped that others did likewise.
It took an intensive year of searching into the hidden politics to discover that we are as free as we believe we are. If we are in denial, we don't see the signs that are staring at us, but keep our minds turned off and busy with all the mundane affairs of daily life.
We just don't care enough to find out the real truth, and settle for the hand-fed stories that come our way over the major media sources television, radio, newspaper, and magazines. But it's too late to turn back to the days of blindfolds and hiding our heads in the sand because the reality is becoming very clear. The time is fast approaching when we will be the ones asking "What happened to our freedom? To our free speech? To our right to protect ourselves and our family? To think as an individual? To express ourselves in whatever way we wish?"
Once we challenge that freedom we find out how free we really are. How many are willing to take up that challenge? Very few indeed, otherwise we wouldn't find ourselves in the situation that we are in at the present time. We wouldn't have let things progress and get out of the hands of the public and into the hands of those that seek to keep us under their control no matter what it takes, and that includes the use of force and detainment for those that ask the wrong questions.
Will asking questions be outlawed next? Several instances have recently been reported where those that were asking questions that came too near the untold truth (the cover up) were removed from the press conferences and from the public's ear. Also, those that wanted to speak to the press were detained and either imprisoned, locked in a psychiatric hospital, slaughtered (through make-believe suicides) or discredited.
Why are we all in denial over these possibilities? Didn't we hear about prison camps in Germany, and even in the United States during World War II? Japanese individuals were rounded up and placed in determent camps during the duration of the War. Where was their freedom?
You don't think it could happen to you? Obviously those rounded up and killed didn't think it could happen to them either. How could decent people have witnessed such atrocities and still said nothing? Are we going to do the same here as they cart off one by one those individuals who are taking a stand for the rights of the citizens as they expose the truth happening behind the scenes? Are we all going to sit there and wonder what happened to this country of ours? Where did we go wrong? How could we let it happen?
Creative Commons Usage Guidelines for this article.
You may be giving me too much credit there Mike. I don't recall saying all that.
ReplyDeleteHowever since they rake in most of their money from the far left, they have to give you lip service.
The problem is, that to get elected they have to pretend at least to side with the mainstream.
They've put themselves between Iraq and a hard place.
I remember you saying it allright Volt but nomatter.....the point is I am not nor have I EVER been "Far Left"
ReplyDeletesee the Right has this cute little habit of labeling ANYONE that opposes the Bush admin as fringe far left wackos.
I dont think anyone in this blog is "far left"........most are middleclass capitalist who own guns and value freedom, liberties and democracy.
Are you trying to say im the far left fringe?
Because thats COMPLETELY riddiculous, I am not now, nor have I Ever been a Democrat, like Bartlebe I could just as easily support Ron Paul, i'm fully invested in the Market, i've been making about 40% a year in the stock market ....probably far better than YOU or your buddy Fascist Fan, and I own several guns, so I defy even the slimiest repug partisan hack to label me a far left fringe wacko.
I dont even think there IS a "far left" candidate running for President.........Candidates like Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel etc.........are MUCH more populist/progressive or Libertarian like than far left.
ReplyDeleteHow come Voltron always shows up when I do?
ReplyDeleteI hope everyone saw Rahm Emmanual on REAL TIME with Bill Maher tonight.
ReplyDeleteIf you did, then you saw the best example of whats wrong with the democRATS.
Rahm Emmanual is not part of the problem. He is much higher up the rung than that.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the spinelessness that has infected the democRATs and caused the party to ROT, is the ROTTEN FOUL DUNG oozing from the mouth of this cesspool of human waste.
Rahm Emmanuel is a bottomfeeder.
A bottomfeeder of the worst kind, who has been a key component to the death and destruction of so many people.
He is garbage.
For as much as I despise George W Bush, at least you know where he stands.
ReplyDeleteRahm Emmanuel is a snake in the grass, who talks peace, but votes war.
He is a liar and a moral coward.
He is worse to me than the republicans, and deserves worse condemnation than they do.
I know that will rile some people, but at least the republicans let you know they worship war.
Rahm Emmanual should just go ahead now and join the republican party.
ReplyDeleteSo he can be all he can be.
Israel asks U.S. foreign aid be paid in EUROS
ReplyDeleteFYI - the Euro is now worth about 1.4 US Dollars.
About us Money Links Great Sites Great Quotes Our Logo Must Reads Old Blog Home » Blogs » Claymoremind's blog
Israel asks U.S. foreign aid be paid in EUROS
FYI - the Euro is now worth about 1.4 US Dollars.
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni
Secretary of State Rice has acknowledged a communique from Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Levni which requests that all foreign aid payments and loans from the United States be made in Euros rather than in Dollars. Foreign Minister Levni cited the rapidly declining dollar and it's disfavor as a world currency as reasons for the request.
"In the spirit of Yom Kippur, the United States will not hold Israel to any agreements obligating them to accept Dollars as payment for their foreign aid. We will translate our obligations into Euros or whatever currency that best fits Israel's needs" Secretary Rice said in the Friday, Sept 21 announcement.
"We need to place our Israeli obligations at the top of our national priority list. Israel should not suffer any inconvenience due to currency fluctuations" said Rice before heading off to Camp David.
A similar request from Egypt was declined last week.
(although this piece is satire, things like this could become reality as the dollar ends up below the peso in value).
Clif, that is truly amazing. I'm linking to this article.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Clif the dollar is worth less of late , and is well on its way to becoming completely worthless............particularly if China uses the "nuclear option" and dumps our dollars, which i think is likely if we attack Iran.
ReplyDeleteCarl said...
ReplyDeleteI disagree.
The bill had at its heart the notion that to declare Iran a terrorist state would allow us to move in the UN towards sanctions.
Which I wholeheartedly agree with. Yes, it also opened the door, a crack, towards unilateral action against Iran, but I seriously doubt even Bush is moronic enough to go there in the last year of his term."
How exactly does that work now?
The way I see it a hawkish blanket statement like that that reeks of the same rhetoric that led up to Iraq being attacked unilaterally and pre-emptively will only make international sanctions MORE difficult by serving to push countries away from Bush the big bully and force them to side with Iran.
Its a transparent attempt at getting Congress to be complicit in an attack on Iran by designating them a terrorist organization........now Bush can label anyone opposed to attacking iran as supporting terrorists and supporting the murder of us soldiers..........and believe me this demagogue wont waste any time in doing so.
These clowns are transparent as can be.
an average patriot said...
ReplyDeleteLydia
An attack on Iran was a foregone conclusion years ago and it will happen. Whoever voted for what does not matter. The damage is done, bush is in the middle east, and he will not leave until he attacks Iran. This will soon get a lot worse.
I am wondering what happens if China stops buying Bush's debt? I am of the frame of mind that China has more power to stop Bush than anyone else and they are letting him hang us. What do you think?"
as usual, we are in complete agreement Patriot, I too, think China will fight back economically at least at first by dumping our debt and destroying the dollar if the Neo Cons attack Iran.
And For the record I NEVER like Joe Loserman or Rahm Emanual........In fact Loserman was the main reason I DIDNT vote for Gore in 2000.
ReplyDeleteActually Clif the Euro was at 1.42 last I checked.
ReplyDeleteCarl said...
ReplyDeleteI disagree.
The bill had at its heart the notion that to declare Iran a terrorist state would allow us to move in the UN towards sanctions.
Which I wholeheartedly agree with. Yes, it also opened the door, a crack, towards unilateral action against Iran, but I seriously doubt even Bush is moronic enough to go there in the last year of his term."
Well you clearly don't understand the ammendment or what it means.
The ammendment labels the "Islamic Revolutionary Gaurd", which is a branch of the Iranian military that controls the "Basij" which is a volunteer force estimated at about 400,000 strong active, and a potential of 11 million men strong.
Because of other authority handed over to Bush over the last 6 years, Bush now has UNLIMITED power to pursue TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME and with WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY.
Labeling this organization a terrorist organization did not open a "crack".
It punched a whole in the wall, and gave Bush UNLIMITED AND UNFETTERED AUTHORITY to do WHATEVER THE F$$#K HE WANTS IN IRAN.
I know you love to disagree with me Carl, but the fact is you didn't read the ammendment, and if you did, then you clearly don't understand it.
Like lots of people.
If you want to understand it, then listen to Mario Cumo's interview last night on HARDBALL.
He was saying the exact same things I've been saying since Wednesday, when they passed the ammendment.
Why is it the Democrats passed the childrens health insurance bill even though they knew Bush would veto it, but they claim they can't pass the Iraq funding bill or the Iraqi War Deauthorization Bill because Bush will veto it?
ReplyDeleteTaliban suicide bomber wearing an Afghan army uniform set off a huge explosion Saturday while trying to board a military bus in the capital, killing 30 people, most of them soldiers, officials said. Hours later, the Afghan president offered to meet personally with the Taliban leader for peace talks and give the militants a position in government.
ReplyDeleteDidn't Bush say he won this war?
Iran's parliament on Saturday approved a nonbinding resolution labeling the CIA and the U.S. Army "terrorist organizations," in apparent response to a Senate resolution seeking to give a similar designation to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
ReplyDeleteThe hard-line dominated parliament cited U.S. involvement in dropping nuclear bombs in Japan in World War II, using depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, supporting the killings of Palestinians by Israel, bombing and killing Iraqi civilians, and torturing terror suspects in prisons.
"The aggressor U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency are terrorists and also nurture terror," said a statement by the 215 lawmakers who signed the resolution at an open session of the Iranian parliament. The session was broadcast live on state-run radio.
The resolution, which is seen as a diplomatic offensive against the U.S., urges Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government to treat the two as terrorist organizations. It also paves the way for the resolution to become legislation that - if ratified by the country's hardline constitutional watchdog - would become law. The government is expected to wait for U.S. reaction before making its decision.
On Wednesday, the Senate voted 76-22 in favor of a resolution urging the State Department to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. While the proposal attracted overwhelming bipartisan support, a small group of Democrats said they feared labeling the state-sponsored organization a terrorist group could be interpreted as a congressional authorization of military force in Iran.
The Bush administration had already been considering whether to blacklist an elite unit within the Revolutionary Guard, subjecting part of the vast military operation to financial sanctions.
The coming Bush War!
VoteVets.org has unveiled a new internet ad on YouTube, which captures the moment that General David Petraeus admits during an exchange with Senator John Warner, that he doesn’t know if the White House plan for Iraq will make America safer, and hasn’t put much thought into it. It also captures similar moments of frustration from Republican Senators Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar.
ReplyDeleteOf all days, on September 11, Americans were reminded that we need to be vigilant against real threats to America, and how our military is used will either help or hurt security. But, General Petraeus has a very limited area of concern - the US military in Iraq. With three words, he confirmed yesterday that his responsibility isn’t to worry about the world outside of Iraq, or our global commitments, or the overall war on terror.
Bush and his lapdog care nothing for the U.S they care about war.
A U.S. soldier broke down in tears Thursday as he testified that he was ordered to shoot an unarmed Iraqi man, and that his sergeant laughed and told the trooper to finish the job as the man convulsed on the ground.
ReplyDeleteThe military reported, meanwhile, it had opened an investigation of the deaths of five women and four children killed earlier this week in a village south of Baghdad where American forces had carried out ground and air assaults.
Sgt. Evan Vela's testimony came during the court-martial of Spc. Jorge G. Sandoval, of Laredo, Texas. Sandoval is on trial for allegedly killing Iraqis and trying to cover up the deaths by planting weapons at the scene.
Vela, Sandoval and Staff Sgt. Michael Hensley of Candler, N.C., are all charged in the case.
Vela testified that Hensley told him to shoot the Iraqi man, although he was not armed and had his hands in the air when he approached the soldiers.
"He asked me if I was ready. I had the pistol out. I heard the word 'shoot.' I don't remember pulling the trigger. It took me a second to realize that the shot came from the pistol in my hand," he said, crying and speaking barely above a whisper.
Vela said that as the Iraqi man was convulsing on the ground, "Hensley laughed about it and hit the guy on the throat and said shoot again."
"After he (the Iraqi man) was shot, Sgt. Hensley pulled an AK-47 out of his rucksack and said, 'This is what we are going to say happened,"' Vela said. He was dismissed from the witness stand to compose himself.
Vela said Sandoval, who was nearby providing security, was not present during the killing outside Iskandariyah, a mostly Sunni Arab city 30 miles south of Baghdad.
Sandoval faces five charges, including an April 27 murder of an unknown Iraqi male, placing a detonation wire on his body, premeditated murder of the Iraqi on May 11, placing an AK-47 rifle on his body and failing to ensure humane treatment of a detainee -- the victim.
Nearly five years of violent occupation by U.S. imperialist forces has created the largest refugee crisis in the Middle East since the Palestinian Nakba in 1948.
ReplyDeleteTwo million people have been forced to leave Iraq because of the occupation. Many have flooded neighboring states such as Syria and Jordan. According to the Iraqi Red Crescent, more than 2 million are now refugees within Iraq.
And nearly 2,000 Palestinian refugees living in Iraq are now stranded at the Iraq-Syria border, living in tents. Some have been made refugees for a second or third time since 1948.
Contrary to the recent report by Gen. David Petreaus report, which praised the "growing safety" in Iraq, the reality is that the occupation has created an enormous humanitarian crisis for all Iraqis. Iraq has the fastest growing refugee population in the world.
According to Kritele Younes, of the Washington-based organizations Refugees International, "100,000 [Iraqis] are being displaced every month. In Syria alone, there are estimates that there’s about 40,000 Iraqis that are coming every month."
In addition to over 4 million refugees, the occupation is responsible for the death of over 1 million people since 2003.
The U.S. government and its allies have done nothing to address the intensifying refugee crisis—a crisis caused by them. Washington’s focus remains avoiding a "catastrophic defeat" in Iraq. Most recently, the government has advanced plans to dismantle Iraq to maintain regional hegemony.
Is this the Bush version of "Compassionate Comservative?"
Lydia, this is an excellent reminder that Hillary is the last Democrat we want
ReplyDeleteWho is behind the Push to War:
ReplyDeleteFreedom’s Watch, a deep-pocketed conservative group led by two former senior White House officials, made an audacious debut in late August when it began a $15 million advertising campaign designed to maintain Congressional support for President Bush’s troop increase in Iraq.
Founded this summer by a dozen wealthy conservatives, the nonprofit group is set apart from most advocacy groups by the immense wealth of its core group of benefactors, its intention to far outspend its rivals and its ambition to pursue a wide-ranging agenda. Its next target: Iran policy.
Next month, Freedom’s Watch will sponsor a private forum of 20 experts on radical Islam that is expected to make the case that Iran poses a direct threat to the security of the United States, according to several benefactors of the group.
Although the group declined to identify the experts, several were invited from the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington research group with close ties to the White House. Some institute scholars have advocated a more confrontational policy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, including keeping military action as an option.
Last week, a Freedom’s Watch newspaper advertisement called President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran “a terrorist.” The group is considering a national advertising campaign focused on Iran, a senior benefactor said, though Matt S. David, a spokesman for the group, declined to comment on those plans.
“If Hitler’s warnings were heeded when he wrote ‘Mein Kampf,’ he could have been stopped,” said Bradley Blakeman, 49, the president of Freedom’s Watch and a former deputy assistant to Mr. Bush. “Ahmadinejad is giving all the same kind of warning signs to us, and the region — he wants the destruction of the United States and the destruction of Israel.”
With a forceful message and a roster of wealthy benefactors, Freedom’s Watch has quickly emerged from the crowded field of nonprofit advocacy groups as a conservative answer to the 9-year-old liberal MoveOn.org, which vehemently opposes the Iraq war.
The idea for Freedom’s Watch was hatched in March at the winter meeting of Republican Jewish Coalition in Manalapan, Fla., where Vice President Dick Cheney was the keynote speaker, according to participants. Next week, the group is moving into a 10,000-square-foot office in the Chinatown section of Washington, with plans to employ as many as 50 people by early next year.
One benefactor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the group was hoping to raise as much as $200 million by November 2008. Raising big money “will be easy,” the benefactor said, adding that several of the founders each wrote a check for $1 million. Mr. Blakeman would not confirm or deny whether any donor gave $1 million, or more, to the organization.
Since the group is organized as a tax-exempt organization, it does not have to reveal its donors and it can not engage in certain types of partisan activities that directly support political candidates. It denies coordinating its activities with the White House, although many of its donors and organizers are well connected to the administration, including Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary.
“Ideologically, we are inspired by much of Ronald Reagan’s thinking — peace through strength, protect and defend America, and prosperity through free enterprise,” Mr. Fleischer said.
Among the group’s founders are Sheldon G. Adelson, the chairman and chief executive of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, who ranks sixth on the Forbes Magazine list of the world’s billionaires; Mel Sembler, a shopping center magnate based in St. Petersburg, Fla., who served as the ambassador to Italy and Australia; John M. Templeton Jr., the conservative philanthropist from Bryn Mawr, Pa.; and Anthony H. Gioia, a former ambassador to Malta who heads an investment group based in Buffalo, N.Y. All four men are long-time prolific donors who have raised money on behalf of Republican and conservative causes.
For years, the group’s founders lamented MoveOn’s growing influence, derived in large part from its grass-roots efforts, especially on the debate about the Iraq war. “A bunch of us activists kept watching MoveOn and its attacks on the war, and it just got to be obnoxious,” said Mr. Sembler, a friend of Vice President Dick Cheney. “We decided we needed to do something about this, because the conservative side was not responding.”
Mr. Sembler, who is on the board of directors of the American Enterprise Institute, said the impetus for Freedom’s Watch “came out of A.E.I.” last winter. He said that at an institute event in December 2006 he listened to retired Gen. Jack Keane and Frederick W. Kagan, an A.E.I. scholar, talk about the need for a troop increase in Iraq, a plan adopted by Mr. Bush in January. “I realized it was not only what we needed to do,” Mr. Sembler said, “but we needed to articulate this message across the country.”
Mr. Sembler also said he was frustrated that he heard reports at institute events earlier this year that the increase was working, but that the news media was not reflecting the progress.
Mr. Fleischer said: “After the president announced the surge, and even Republicans started getting nervous, there was a palpable fear among several of us that this fall Congress was going to cut off the funding and the Middle East would explode and America would likely get hit. It really wasn’t much more complicated than that.”
Over the summer, Mr. Fleischer and the other founders recruited a president, choosing Mr. Blakeman, who served as a deputy assistant to the president in charge of scheduling and appointments. In 2000, Mr. Blakeman led the Bush-Cheney campaign’s public relations effort during the 36 days of the deadlocked election. He left the White House in January 2004.
Mr. Blakeman and Mr. Fleischer said they intended to turn Freedom’s Watch into a permanent fixture among Washington advocacy groups, waging a “never-ending campaign” on an array of foreign policy and domestic issues. They also hope to build an active, grass-roots support network.
But Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, which was founded in 1998 by two Silicon Valley venture capitalists, said he doubted the group’s ability to meet that goal.
“This is the fourth or the fifth group that intends to be the right-wing MoveOn,” Mr. Pariser said, naming other fledgling groups like TheVanguard.org and Grassfire.org. “So far, it’s not clear that this group is anything other than a big neoconservative slush fund. They are a White House front group with a few consultants who are trying to make a very unpopular position on the war appear more palpable.”
Hey guys did you see hillary is losing support in iowa after the debate with edwards
ReplyDeleteSen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) may seem invincible in national polling numbers, but in Iowa, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is gaining steam.
ReplyDeleteAccording to a Newsweek poll Saturday, Clinton enjoys a six-point lead over Obama and a ten point lead over former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.
"Among all Iowa Democratic voters, Clinton draws 31 percent, followed by Obama (25 percent) and Edwards (21 percent)," Newsweek writes. "But among likely caucus-goers, Obama enjoys a slim lead, polling 28 percent to best Clinton (24 percent) and Edwards (22 percent). Bill Richardson is the only other Democratic candidate to score in the double digits (10 percent)."
Hillary the War Queen is falling!
I'm not trying to upset, offend or freak out anyone, and I'm not exaggerating for effect.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, and if you listen to a few of the "early experts", you'll see they are saying the same thing I am saying.
This is much more than a minor opportunity. By labeling the Islamic Revolutionary Guard a "Terrorist Organization", congress gave Bush the authority to do whatever it takes, to destroy them. That thanks to other bills the worms we call democrats handed to Bush over the last 6 years.
Acts like the Patriot Act, give bush unprecedented and unlimited power, not constrained by geographical boundaries or international laws or treaties, to pursue whomever he labels terrorists, wherever they are.
So he doesn't even have to declare war on Iran now, to attack Iran.
He needs no further approval from congress, (other than funding, which he can pull from "emergency terrorist funding he already has access to) to launch whatever kind of attack he wants to take out the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.
And since the IRG is 400,000 strong, with an estimated reserve of 11 Million,that attack could be pretty major.
In fact, because of the idiots in congress giving him this type of power, again, he can now launch these attacks, and not even TELL congress, or anyone else. They can be completely clandestine if he so choses. Random bombings, border crossings for recon ops or surgical strikes, whatever.
Whatever Mr Bush "feels" is necessary to take out the IRG, is now at his disposal, thanks to the Lieberman-Kyl ammendment, plus a handful of previous ammendments and acts.
And if you think Bush won't use this new power, think about how long he waited to invade Iraq, once congress voted to hand him the "authority to make the call".
ReplyDeleteI doubt he'll wait too much longer.
They didn't go to the middle east to walk away and leave all the oil. Bush is there and he's dug in deeper than an Alabama woodtick on a coondog, and he's not budging.
All he's gonna do is burrow deeper, and suck that place dry.
Harry Reid is a trainwreck. A disaster. He has no spine, and even less judgement.
ReplyDeleteHe, along with Pelosi, Rahm Emmanual, Hoyer, and the rest who once again voted to hand Bush power to blow the middle east back to the stone age, should be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.
We've been attacking the republicans all along, and when we really should have been focusing on the enemy within.
It is not the enemy without that has sunk us, but the enemy within.
ReplyDeleteAll the water in the world, however hard it tried.
Could never sink the smallest ship unless it got inside.
And all the evil in the world, the blackest kind of sin.
Can never harm you the least bit unless you let it in.
Ella Wheeler Wilcox
We should all join the democratic party, and vote for John Edwards in the primaries.
ReplyDeleteJohn Edwards needs to win the DNC primary.
He may be this countries only hope. I sure as hell hope he's ready.
The Lieberman/Kyl bill is a veiled replica of the same bill that Hillary and the Repugs pushed to get an attack on Iraq.
ReplyDeleteI'm almost TOO disgusted to even talk about this anymore.
ReplyDeletePoor judgement is putting it mildly...............the majority of the Democrats have shown they have learned absolutely NOTHING from 2001-2002 when they authorized both Bush's authority to wage war as a LAST resort and the Patriot act.........They continue to fall for Bush's demagogery and fear mongering tactics to the detriment of good sound judgement.
They did it with the funding for the war, they did it when they caved into his illegal unconstitutional spying, they did it by declaring the Iranian IRG a terrorist organization, and they will cave in AGAIN and fund Bushs wars.
What have they actually done to restore the Constitution and our Freedoms and liberties that have been taken by this delusional war mongering madman...........from where I sit.....Not a goddamn thing!
And I can announce tonight, that I, BARTLEBEE, have decided to throw my support behind John Edwards at this time.
ReplyDeleteI've weighed the options, and I do like Ron Paul, but for now, I'm just not willing to vote for a republican. Also Paul is somewhat hard on minorities and the poor, with his "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" approach. Thats fine if you're strong and healthy, but theirs a lot of people out there that need help, and every human should always get the help they need. So I'm going with John Edwards for the win.
If you feel like I do, then lets donate money, raise money for him, join the DNC, and lets help him get the DNC nod and put him in the White House.
For BARTLEBEE at least, its time to get off the fence.
Larry said...
ReplyDeleteThe Lieberman/Kyl bill is a veiled replica of the same bill that Hillary and the Repugs pushed to get an attack on Iraq.
Thats right Larry.
And Lieberman/Kyl Ammendment is the primary factor that helped me arrive at my decision to fully support John Edwards for President.
ReplyDeleteBecause like I said a long time back in here to Lydia, Edwards had to show me something. Something real, because the last time someone passed him the ball, he fumbled.
Well this time he scored a touchdown. Practically EVERYONE either voted FOR the ammendment, or like cowards, abstained.
Edwards pulled ahead of the pack, by showing he CAN learn from his own errors in judgement, and this time he took the ball and ran with it. Thats why he's the only one of the field that really deserves our support.
And since he was brave enough to throw off corporate money, and go for public funds, he deserves all the help he can get to raise the money he needs to beat Eva Brau....er, I mean Hilary Clinton, and take this thing home.
ReplyDeleteThis Lieberman/Kyl Ammendment is a milestone in Bush's war on Terror, and might prove to be the straw that broke the UN's back.
ReplyDeleteI will not forgive one single Democrat that voted for it.
Well I'm with you in supporting Edwards and I've been planning to make a donation to his campaign.
ReplyDeleteBut its the registering as a Democrat thats hard to swallow for me...........Sure I REALIZE that it would help Edwards for me to vote for him in the Primary and its probably the right thing to do...............But its tough for me to actually join the Democratic party and associate myself with those spineless wimps.
I honestly hope Edwards runs Independent and that Both the Democratic Party And The Repug party fracture to a Progressive/Populist Party and A libertarian Party...........We need More Choices and More People who value Freedom, Liberty and sound judgement.
What galls me is the repug minority got a WORTHLESS Bill passed scolding Moveon.org for calling a spade a spade and saying that Petraeus is a partisan hack and a Shill for GWB.................While The Democratic Majority has utterly and completely failed to End the war, Restore Habeous Corpus, Stop the "DECIDER" from illegally and Unconstitutionally spying on American Citizens, or seizing their assets and declaring martial law.
ReplyDeleteEdwards needs money and a favorable media and the Clinton forces are preventing both.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately Larry, Edwards will have to focus on the issues to win............he Will NEVER have a favorable media, and he will Never have more money than Hillary or Obama.
ReplyDeleteHe was one of America's first defenders on Sept. 11, 2001, a Marine who pulled burned bodies from the ruins of the Pentagon. He saw more horrors in Kuwait and Iraq.
ReplyDeleteToday, he can't keep a job, pay his bills, or chase thoughts of suicide from his tortured brain. In a few weeks, he may lose his house, too.
Gamal Awad, the American son of a Sudanese immigrant, exemplifies an emerging group of war veterans: the economic casualties.
More than in past wars, many wounded troops are coming home alive from the Middle East. That's a triumph for military medicine. But they often return hobbled by prolonged physical and mental injuries from homemade bombs and the unremitting anxiety of fighting a hidden enemy along blurred battle lines. Treatment, recovery and retraining often can't be assured quickly or cheaply.
These troops are just starting to seek help in large numbers, more than 185,000 so far. But the cost of their benefits is already testing resources set aside by government and threatening the future of these wounded veterans for decades to come, say economists and veterans' groups.
"The wounded and their families no longer trust that the government will take care of them the way they thought they'd be taken care of," says veterans advocate Mary Ellen Salzano.
How does a war veteran expect to be treated? "As a hero," she says.
Every morning, Awad needs to think of a reason not to kill himself.
He can't even look at the framed photograph that shows him accepting a Marine heroism medal for his recovery work at the Pentagon after the terrorist attack.
It might remind him of a burned woman whose skin peeled off in his hands when he tried to comfort her.
He tries not to hear the shrieking rockets of Iraq either, smell the burning fuel, or relive the blast that blew him right out of bed.
The memories come steamrolling back anyway.
"Nothing can turn off those things," he says, voice choked and eyes glistening.
He stews alternately over suicide and finances, his $43,000 in credit card debt, his $4,330 in federal checks each month — the government's compensation for his total disability from post-traumatic stress disorder. His flashbacks, thoughts of suicide, and anxiety over imagined threats — all documented for six years in his military record — keep him from working.
The disability payments don't cover the $5,700-a-month cost of his adjustable home mortgage and equity loans. He owes more on his house than its market value, so he can't sell it — but he may soon lose it to the bank.
"I love this house. It makes me feel safe," he says.
Awad could once afford it. He used to earn $100,000 a year as a 16-year veteran major with a master's degree in management who excelled at logistics. Now, at age 38, he can't even manage his own life.
There's another twist. This dedicated Marine was given a "general" discharge 15 months ago for an extramarital affair with a woman, also a Marine. That's even though his military therapists blamed this impulsive conduct on post-traumatic stress aggravated by his Middle East tours.
Luckily, his discharge, though not unqualifiedly honorable, left intact his rights to medical care and disability payments — or he'd be in sadder shape.
Divorced since developing PTSD, Awad has two daughters who live elsewhere. He spends much of his days hoisting weights and thwacking a punching bag in the dimness of his garage. He passes nights largely sleepless, a zombie shuffling through the bare rooms of his home in sunny California wine country.
This is how Bush cares for the troops.
The media says Edwards won't win even if he wins the Iowa primary, so it turns voters away thinking what's the use.
ReplyDeleteMike said...
ReplyDeleteBut its tough for me to actually join the Democratic party and associate myself with those spineless wimps.
lol, you and me BOTH buddy. You and me both.
US First Lady Laura Bush Friday branded as "deplorable" and "horrifying" the Myanmar military regime's crackdown on demonstrators and expressed doubts about the official death toll in the violence.
ReplyDelete"The deplorable acts of violence being perpetrated against Buddhist monks and peaceful Burmese demonstrators shame the military regime," Bush said in a statement.
"Tens of thousands of Burmese are turning to the streets to demand their freedom -- and the country's military dictatorship has countered with horrifying abuses. Non-violent demonstrations by Buddhist monks and nuns have been met with tear gas, smoke grenades, baton beatings, and automatic weapons," she said.
"The regime admits to killing 10 people, but unofficial reports suggest the number is much higher," she added, noting that the regime's shutdown of communication links has cut off the flow of reliable information from Myanmar.
If this regine is "Deplorable and Horrifying" what is Bush's regime that does the same thing.
The way I see it thought, the DNC candidate is pretty much going to walk away with the election unless its someone like Hilary, and then I do see Edwards or someone standing up as a 3rd party candidate.
ReplyDeleteOf course then its a crap shoot, because the 3rd party candidate will be taking votes from the DNC candidate, and that means the RNC candidate could win because the other two cancelled each other out.
So I'm hoping we don't have to go there. And if enough independents and others decide now to join the DNC and vote in the primaries, then we might not have to.
I wish Independents ran in every race and won.
ReplyDeleteCrooks and Liars:
ReplyDeleteI’ve always admired the no nonsense approach of Mario Cuomo. I remember his ‘84 keynote address at the Democratic convention was so stirring that my whole family hoped he run for national office. And again, Mario Cuomo cuts through all the political spin and gives the unvarnished truth. His condemnation for Congress for their naivety and willingness to give up their responsibilities to an untrustworthy administration makes me wish again for Cuomo on the national scene.
Let’s not do what we did before and wind up apologizing for our resolutions and saying we’re sorry. Now remember, the Founding Fathers gave the powers to declare war to the Congress. That power cannot be delegated to the President. You can’t adopt a resolution and say well, the Founding Fathers wanted us to do it, but it’s too heavy a lift for us, so we empower you, Mr. President, if you feel like doing it, to do it.
And my goodness, the President you’re talking about is the president who started a war with a mistaken context-assuming he was telling the truth, and I will-he was wrong about the reason for it, he was wrong about complicity, he was wrong about how many troops we needed, he was wrong about how we would be greeted when we got there, he was wrong about the civil war, wrong about how much it would cost, wrong about how long it would last and now you’re saying maybe he can start another war. It’s a mistake; this an opportunity for Democrats to show real leadership. And the presidential candidates should lead the way. And if they don’t, then the question is going to be when it comes to improvident war-making, why are you any better than Bush?
How can they argue with this?
This is True:
ReplyDeleteJohn Dean knows something about White House abuse of power. He wrote a bestseller in 2004 on the Bush White House called Worse Than Watergate. In a recent interview I asked him what he thinks of that title now. Now, he replied, a book comparing Bush and Nixon would have to be called Much, Much Worse.
“Look at the so-called Watergate abuses of power,” he said. “Nobody died. Nobody was tortured. Millions of Americans were not subject to electronic surveillance of their communications. We’re playing now in a whole different league.”
And how does Bush compare with the Republicans seeking to succeed him? “If a Rudy Giuliani were to be elected,” Dean said, “he would go even farther than Cheney and Bush in their worst moments.”
Mario Cuomo was who I was quoting last night, from HARDBALL.
ReplyDeleteHe was saying exactly what I was saying a day before in TP, about the Lillylivered Lieberman-Kyl Ammendment, and how it just pushed the door wide open for Bush to invade Iran.
Cuomo knows. He understand perfectly whats going on.
Now if we could just get folks to listen.
I fear a strike on Iran is imminent.
ReplyDeletePossibly just a matter of weeks.
I think Bush will attack Iran in the spring, and distract everyone from his real intentions.
ReplyDeleteYour right, a 3 way race WOULD be a crapshoot, maybe i will register as a DemaRat!..............as much as it hurts to say that.
ReplyDeleteI think if Bush intended to cancel the elections and declare martial law..........which I do think he intends then it would make more sense to wait till Spring or Summer of next year.........how can you justify cancelling elections 13 months away if he does the deed now?
ReplyDeleteIt is gallows humor time for Republicans in Congress, where one lawmaker jokes that "there's talk about us going the way of the Whigs," the 19th century political party long extinct.
ReplyDelete"That's not going to happen," Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., hastens to add, although a little more than a year before the 2008 election, the major leading political indicators still point downward for a party abruptly turned out of power in 2006.
Hillary is a Trojan Republican.
Even people as stupid as Bush and Cheney HAVE to realize that they cant occupy or control Iran, and bombing will only do so much mainly destroy infrastructure............so that leads me to conclude that their intent is to use the economic chaos it would create in OUR country to declare martial law and seize total power here.
ReplyDeleteMike said...
ReplyDeleteYour right, a 3 way race WOULD be a crapshoot, maybe i will register as a DemaRat!..............as much as it hurts to say that.
I just hope my folks don't find out, lol.
Mike said...
ReplyDeleteI think if Bush intended to cancel the elections and declare martial law..........which I do think he intends then it would make more sense to wait till Spring or Summer of next year.........how can you justify cancelling elections 13 months away if he does the deed now?
Well I hope thats not his plan, but I'm thinking that right now he wants to get into Iran, before he gets in more trouble legally and politically. If he can get us bogged down in Iran, (he won't stop with just air strikes, can't tap the oil from the air) and maybe stir up the Chinese or Russians into a proxy war, then he can reinstate the draft as a national emergency, and possibly declare martial law, like we all fear so much.
You might be right though, but I don't think he's that patient, and I think he might even be striking Iran right now, with covert ops.
Once he gets the war bucks going he probably sees that as a way to reinvigorate the economy.
ReplyDeleteOne things for sure.
ReplyDeleteIts time to stop focusing on the republiscums, who have proven they are a foul and loathsome party hell bent on world domination, and start focusing on those claiming to be on our side.
If we stand up a halfway decent candidate, and I think we have one in John Edwards, then we won't have to worry about focusing on beating the republican scumbags.
ReplyDeleteThey've already beaten themselves.
I hope Bush completely destroys the Republican party, like he is America.
ReplyDeleteEdwards represents a new, vibrant America, just like Bill Clinton did. He is young, smart, personable, diplomatic, and humble enough to admit when he's erred, and commited enough to correct his errors when he can.
ReplyDeleteI obviously don't agree with everything he does, votes on, says, etc, but I've decided I'm never going to find someone I agree with on everything, so I had to weigh the priorities.
And to BARTLEBEE, the number one priorty, is that a President does not vote to butcher people in foreign lands, just because he can.
After 8 years of darkness and gloom under the republicans and their world of armmegeddon and apocolypse, fearmongering and hate speach, Edwards will blow over the country like a cool breeze of hope and prosperity.
ReplyDeleteHe can bring back core American values, of industry, technology, success, wealth, true freedom,(not the republican kind) and put us back on the road to being the worlds most loved and respected nation on the planet.
I know those are big shoes to fill, but he's not running for city council.
Larry said...
ReplyDeleteI hope Bush completely destroys the Republican party, like he is America.
Your wish is granted.
Wouldn't it be sweet for the Bush dynasty that was to deliver the world from Bill Clinton, is the same dynasty that destroys the neocon way of life.
ReplyDeleteBARTLEBEE said...
ReplyDeleteOne things for sure.
Its time to stop focusing on the republiscums, who have proven they are a foul and loathsome party hell bent on world domination, and start focusing on those claiming to be on our side."
Agreed, Edwards needs our support!
BARTLEBEE said...
ReplyDeleteIf we stand up a halfway decent candidate, and I think we have one in John Edwards, then we won't have to worry about focusing on beating the republican scumbags.
They've already beaten themselves."
I've said in here MANY times that evil always turns on itself and defeats itself..........that will surely be the fate of the repugs.
I agree we know who caused this now we need someone to straighten it out, as much as possible.
ReplyDeleteBARTLEBEE said...
ReplyDeleteEdwards represents a new, vibrant America, just like Bill Clinton did. He is young, smart, personable, diplomatic, and humble enough to admit when he's erred, and commited enough to correct his errors when he can.
I obviously don't agree with everything he does, votes on, says, etc, but I've decided I'm never going to find someone I agree with on everything, so I had to weigh the priorities.
And to BARTLEBEE, the number one priorty, is that a President does not vote to butcher people in foreign lands, just because he can."
I Also see Edwards as a Bill Clinton or JFK that the world will love and respect and that will put America back on the right path.................I Know Lydia liked Edwards early on, But it was in the Debates that Edwards REALLY won me over.
He is a New style Progressive and I think he is REALLY Sincere!
Mike said...
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Edwards needs our support!
Actually I meant the wolves in sheeps clothing currently voting for every republican bill thats put up, and voting against every democratic bill thats introduced.
I meant Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Emmanual and the rest of the Loyalists that are breaking our knees before we even get on the ice.
Jim Webb has turned out to still be a shill for the Repugs.
ReplyDeleteHe was pathetic on Keith Olbermann last night, and he still votes to fund the war.
He was one of America’s first defenders on Sept. 11, 2001, a Marine who pulled burned bodies from the ruins of the Pentagon. He saw more horrors in Kuwait and Iraq.
ReplyDeleteToday, he can’t keep a job, pay his bills, or chase thoughts of suicide from his tortured brain. In a few weeks, he may lose his house, too.
Gamal Awad, the American son of a Sudanese immigrant, exemplifies an emerging group of war veterans: the economic casualties.
More than in past wars, many wounded troops are coming home alive from the Middle East. That’s a triumph for military medicine. But they often return hobbled by prolonged physical and mental injuries from homemade bombs and the unremitting anxiety of fighting a hidden enemy along blurred battle lines. Treatment, recovery and retraining often can’t be assured quickly or cheaply.
These troops are just starting to seek help in large numbers, more than 185,000 so far. But the cost of their benefits is already testing resources set aside by government and threatening the future of these wounded veterans for decades to come, say economists and veterans’ groups.
Mike said...
ReplyDeleteI Also see Edwards as a Bill Clinton or JFK that the world will love and respect and that
I agree. I see a lot of JFK like qualities in Edwards and he really has a chance to be the new hope of the world, if he wants it bad enough.
The trick for him now is to not be timid, not be sheepish, and not let the spinal deterioration disease from people like Pelosi and Reid infect him, and cause him to lose his nerve.
He needs to just toss caution to the wind, and set himself off from the pack.
Larry said...
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be sweet for the Bush dynasty that was to deliver the world from Bill Clinton, is the same dynasty that destroys the neocon way of life."
Allready done that Larry..........Bush has destroyed the Repugs for possibly a generation..........The biggest generation since the Baby Boomers is Strongly opposed to repugs and your political affiliation in your 20's usually lasts for life.
Like I said I wouldnt be surprised to see the repug party change its name or fracture to a Libertarian and Consrtvative branches.
Larry said...
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be sweet for the Bush dynasty that was to deliver the world from Bill Clinton, is the same dynasty that destroys the neocon way of life.
As long as it doesn't take the rest of us with it.
:D
I would like to see Bill Krystol and Rupert Murdoch frog marched to a secret prison for aiding and abetting the enemy.
ReplyDeleteIf you notice the last two debates, they barely speak to Gravel and Kucinich.
ReplyDeleteEdwards is NO FOOL..........I think if he is declining corporate funding and is allready exposing Hillary's hippocrissy then that is a clear sign the gloves are about to come off.......kinda like when Rocky took off his gloves and got back in the ring with the 6 foot 10 Amazing Thunderlips and showed him that he was just getting warmed up.
ReplyDeleteLarry said...
ReplyDeleteIf you notice the last two debates, they barely speak to Gravel and Kucinich.
Its too bad. But they probably don't have a prayer anyway. They're really just trying to set the agenda's I think, and keep the party on track.
I like Mike Gravel, and I really like Kucinich, but they both seem to have a screw loose or two (did you hear Kucinich sing 16 tons?) and I don't think that bodes well for instilling confidence in the voters.
They're great guys, and hopefully will occupy great cabinet positions, (Gravel would make an excellent Secretary of the Interior) and that I think is good too. We can't all be President, but we can all make a difference.
Hillary is locking Edwards off the media and financial stage like a mobster blocks access to a business they are trying to squeeze.
ReplyDeleteWatch out Mike. I might have to change my handle to "THUNDERLIPS" now.
ReplyDelete:D
By far the hulksters best role ever.
ReplyDeleteTim Russert blindsided Gravel the last debate with his two bankruptcies.
ReplyDeleteRussert is a Republican leaking out of the neocon closet.
Hilary is a serious problem. They say she has the nomination sewn up, and maybe she does. Which is why I think its so important to rally people to join the DNC, and vote against her, and for Edwards.
ReplyDeleteAnd if he doesn't make it, then we need to convince him to run 3rd party, which of course the republicans want. But there may be an upset. If Hilary's running, she might draw off a large part of the republican vote, hurting the RNC candidate, which could make the popular election between her and Edwards, which is where I think he could win.
Check out the truth:
ReplyDeleteDemocrats Were Charged To End A War, Not Start One
by Mike Gravel
Hillary Clinton was either misinformed or economical with the truth in Wednesday night’s debate when she responded to my challenge to her by saying the Senate’s resolution earlier in the day on Iran was designed to permit economic sanctions against individual members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
She and her staff should know the United Nations Security Council on March 24 already slapped economic sanctions on individual Guard Members. Like the Red Army in China, Iran allows Guard commanders to own and run private companies. Security Council Resolution 1747, which the United States voted for, froze financial assets held outside Iran on the seven military commanders, including General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr and six other admirals and generals.
I know of no law dictating the State Department must first designate individuals or groups as terrorists before sanctions can be imposed on them. Dozens of countries have been under U.S. unilateral sanctions that are not designated as terrorist. The U.S. first imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979 over the hostages, not terrorism. The only possible purpose of the Senate resolution asking the State Department to designate the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization is to set it up for military attack in George Bush’s war on terror.
As Virginia senator Jim Webb valiantly said in the Senate, the United States has never before designated the military services of a sovereign state a terrorist group. Indeed, though there is international dispute over the definition of terrorism, there is little disagreement on the legal point that terrorists are non-state actors who target civilians, i.e., never members of a government. Governments can be guilty of war crimes, but not terrorism. And the resolution talks about attacks on American troops, not civilians.
The hypocrisy of Hillary and the 75 other senators who called for more unilateral sanctions on Iran, was exposed Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier who said, according to Spiegel Magazine, that American companies are violating existing U.S. sanctions by surreptitiously doing business with Iran through front companies in Dubai.
Joe Lieberman wrote the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq that was passed with Democratic support on October 11, 2002. Lieberman’s new resolution setting up a Bush-Cheney invasion of Iran passed by 76 to 22 with Democratic backing on September 26, 2007. These are two dates that will live in infamy in the 21st century. Led by Senator Clinton, it was another sad day for the Senate and for Senate Democrats, who were elected to the majority in November in order to end a war, not start a new one.
From TP.
ReplyDeleteFreedom Watch’s next target: Iran.
The New York Times reports that next month, the White House-front group Freedom’s Watch “will sponsor a private forum of 20 experts on radical Islam that is expected to make the case that Iran poses a direct threat to the security of the United States”:
Gravel wrote that Larry?
ReplyDeleteLike I said, I really like Gravel. He's a good man with some good ideas. Can he be President? Don't think so. Not enough support and sometimes comes across a little kooky (its because he's intelligent).
ReplyDeleteMaybe Edwards can pick him for veep.
Bartlebee:
ReplyDeleteYes Gravel wrote it. I took it off of Common Dreams.
Its pretty good.
ReplyDeleteCommon Dreams has many good articles, and on occasion Gravel or Kucinich will write one.
ReplyDeleteCommon Dreams
ReplyDeleteThat was a good article Larry.........I like Gravel as well, But i dont think he has a real shot at president.
ReplyDeleteTo be blunt he doesnt present himself well enough and most of what he says which we "GET" goes right over the average citizens head.....he just doesnt connect with people.
Gravel slapped them all around the very first debate, since then they have made him irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteBARTLEBEE said...
ReplyDeleteFrom TP.
Freedom Watch’s next target: Iran.
The New York Times reports that next month, the White House-front group Freedom’s Watch “will sponsor a private forum of 20 experts on radical Islam that is expected to make the case that Iran poses a direct threat to the security of the United States”:"
Why is it the fascists pick names that mean the exact opposite of what they REALLY stand for........like an Organization called Freedom's Watch that Really loathes freedom.
The MSM makes gravel irelevant because people like Hillary fear him focusing on the REAL issues and whats REALLY going on.
ReplyDeleteMike:
ReplyDeleteIf you check the backers of Freedom Watch you may notice a couple have Clinton connections.
Bartlebee -- I'm so glad you came around to seeing John Edwards as the most "electable" candidate, and the most progressive. He does learn from his mistakes too.
ReplyDeleteEdwards is Just what this country NEEDS right now, I plan on making a contribution to his campaign some time this week.
ReplyDeleteLydia Cornell said...
ReplyDeleteBartlebee -- I'm so glad you came around to seeing John Edwards as the most "electable" candidate,
Rub it in why don't ya?
But its not that I see him as the "most electable" Lydia.
ReplyDeleteWhile I did factor that into my choice, thus ruling out Kucinich and Gravel, it was one thing and one thing alone that tipped the scales for me on John Edwards.
And that was his vote on Wednesday, to say "NO SIR, MR PRESIDENT!".
Wednesday was a milestone moment in this war on terror, and Edwards, unlike every other player in the DNC line up, (save Gravel), saw that, and remembered his former error in judgement, and adapted his strategy to compensate.
THAT is the most important thing a president can have. The ability to learn and adapt.
I learned that from watching George Bush.
Watching George Bush try to navigate the role of president looked like watching a drunken Walter Brennan trying to steer a stagecoach.
ReplyDelete:\
Funny image unless you're on the coach.
Its like watching Don Knotts trying to disarm a pipebomb.
ReplyDeleteMike said...
ReplyDeleteEdwards is Just what this country NEEDS right now, I plan on making a contribution to his campaign some time this week.
Make it now. Anything you donate before the 30th is going to be matched by some kind of campaign law thingy or something.
Anyway they're having a big push, its on his website, and the 30th is the cut off so if you can, I'd do it now.
SUNDAY TALK
ReplyDeleteMTP: ex-Pres. Bill Clinton (D); roundtable of WaPo’s Dan Balz, MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan, NBC’s David Gregory, and PBS’ Tavis Smiley.
FTN: Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM); roundtable of author Lawrence Wright, AEI’s Danielle Pletka, and WaPo’s Robin Wright.
This Week: Newt Gingrich; Bill Clinton; roundtable of ex-Pentagon spokesperson Torie Clarke, Dem strategist Donna Brazile, and George Will.
FNS: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY); Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS); Des Moines Register’s David Yepsen and Boston Globe’s James Pindell.
Late Edition: Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO); New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh; Iraqi FM Hoshyar Zebari; roundtable with CNN’s Elaine Quijano, CNN’s Juan Carlos Lopez, and CNN’s Bill Schneider