Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe question is not whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid flinched in their negotiations with the Bush administration over the continuation of the Iraq occupation.
They did. Despite some happy talk about benchmarks that have been attached to the Iraq supplemental spending bill that is expected to be considered by Congress this week, the willingness of Pelosi and Reid to advance a measure that does not include a withdrawal timeline allows Bush to conduct the war as he chooses for much if not all of the remainder of his presidency. This failure to abide by the will of the people who elected Democrats to end the war will haunt Pelosi, Reid and their party -- not to mention the United States and the battered shell that is Iraq.
This "compromise" legislation is such an embarrassing example of what happens when raw politics overwhelms principle -- and political common sense -- that House Democrats have divided the $12O billion measure into two sections. That will allow Republicans and sold-out Democrats to vote for the president's Iraq funding, while anti-war Democrats and their handful of Republican allies can vote "no." Then both Democratic camps can vote separately for the second section -- including a federal minimum-wage increase and more than $8 billion in funding for domestic programs -- while Republicans oppose this section.
Presuming that both parts pass the House, they will then be sent to the Senate as a single bill for members of that chamber to accept or reject. The end result of this confusing set of legislative maneuvers will be twofold: Lots of House members will be able to avoid accountability for their votes, while Bush will get his blank check. Even Pelosi says she'll vote against the Iraq funding section of the House bill because it lacks "a goal or a timetable" for extracting U.S. troops from the conflict. But, no matter how she votes, Pelosi will have facilitated a process that gives the president more war funding than he had initially requested
But the real story now is not the refusal of the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to hold steady in the face of the president's cynical claim that refusing him a blank check to maintain his war through the end of his presidency somehow threatens U.S. troops. That has happened and no matter what games are played with voting procedures, the reality is that the Democratic leadership has failed to lead at the most critical juncture.
The question that remains to be answered is a frustrating but significant one: How many Democrats and responsible Republicans will refuse to accept this ugly political calculus?
What we know is that there will be opposition. MoveOn.org, which provided critical cover for the Democratic leadership during earlier fights on the supplemental and related matters, is now urging all Democrats to vote "no" on the war funding -- and it is threatening in-district ad campaigns against Democrats and Republicans who back the measure.
The most genuinely anti-war members will not need any encouragement to reject the deal.
Senator Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who has led the fight to get Congress to use the power of the purse to bring the troops home, immediately announced that he would not follow Reid into the abyss of surrender to a White House that is getting everything that it wants.
"Under the president's Iraq policies, our military has been over-burdened, our national security has been jeopardized, and thousands of Americans have been killed or injured. Despite these realities, and the support of a majority of Americans for ending the President's open-ended mission in Iraq, congressional leaders now propose a supplemental appropriations bill that does nothing to end this disastrous war," says Feingold. "I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and that allows the President to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history."
Anticipating the cynical gamesmanship of the debate that will play out this week, the Wisconsin Democrat says, "There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action. Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq."
Feingold is, of course, right. But how many senators will join him in voting "no"? That question is especially significant for the four Senate Democrats who are seeking their party's presidential nomination: New York's Hillary Clinton, Illinois' Barack Obama, Delaware's Joe Biden and Connecticut's Chris Dodd. Dodd says he is "disappointed" by the abandonment of the timeline demand; if he presses the point as he did on another recent war-related vote, he could force the hands of the other candidates. If either Clinton or Obama do go ahead and vote for the legislation, and certainly if both of them do so, they will create a huge opening for former North Carolina John Edwards, who has staked out the clearest anti-war position of the front runners for the nomination. But this is about more than just Democratic presidential politics: A number of Senate Republicans who are up for reelection next year -- including Maine's Susan Collins, Minnesota's Norm Coleman and Oregon's Gordon Smith -- may well be casting the most important votes of their political careers.
Collins, Coleman and Smith have tried to straddle the war debate. If they vote to give George Bush another blank check, however, they will have removed any doubt regarding how serious they are about ending the war -- as will their colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by authors and historians Gore Vidal, Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn for its meticulous research into the intentions of the founders and embraced by activists for its groundbreaking arguments on behalf of presidential accountability. After reviewing recent books on impeachment, Rolling Stone political writer Tim Dickinson, writes in the latest issue of Mother Jones, "John Nichols' nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic, The Genius of Impeachment, stands apart. It concerns itself far less with the particulars of the legal case against Bush and Cheney, and instead combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the "heroic medicine" that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
one
Posted by Will C. at 05/22/2007 @ 11:41pm
more time around the block
Posted by Will C. at 05/22/2007 @ 11:41pm
We elected this congress to stop the war and now they are playing politics for the future. All the time Mothers sons and daughters are continuing to die for what? To continue this obscene game of "Wack-a-Mole" until the 2008 election so the Yale Cheerleader can say he didn't lose? The wacko Senate minority loser McConnell keeps talking about a surrender date, the Dems should refer to it as a Victory date. Just declare Victory, tell the Iraqi government(?) it's all theirs and pull the troops out.
This loser president is just going to keep this fiasco going until 1/20/2009. It's disgusting.
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." - John Adams
itmfa
Posted by COProgressive at 05/23/2007 @ 12:05am
or hamstercide
Posted by Will C. at 05/23/2007 @ 12:07am
Mike Gravel is correct when he says anyone who was in Congresse who voted to go into Iraq should be fired, they did not do their homework or their job. The lie to go to war in Iraq only took common sense to avoid.
Why is it that we simpletons on the street were smart enough to be against the war? I said it then and I say it now, "Here goes Vietnam all over again" Congress jumped on the flag waving go to war wagon like they were afraid they would be left behind? They were sold a bill of goods built on lies and at the time most were Republicans. Maybe I missed it, but did the Democrats stand up and fight? Dennis Kchinich, was the only person that got it right.
Look at the Mass media with an agenda. they treat Paul like he is an idiot from another planet.
So you optimists keep believing the Democrats have something up thier sleeves, but just in case you are wrong, I am firing up the old "Who Gives A Damn About Apathy" bumper sticker.
Posted by Leefeller at 05/23/2007 @ 12:13am
NICHOLS: ...This failure to abide by the will of the people who elected Democrats to end the war...
IF NICHOL's take on the "will of the people" is correct, IF and WHEN this distasteful "blank check" clears both the House and Senate, it ought to draw massive protests!
We'll see....MASK, standby to do your usual numerical analysis! I'd expect the numbers ought to be more than those fighting for garment workers at Stanford.
Posted by Happy at 05/23/2007 @ 12:24am
More evidence that there isn't much distinction between the two parties. And once again, Feingold impresses.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/23/2007 @ 01:24am
It doesn't take a PhD in history to determine that we are now in the deepest crisis our nation has yet faced.
I, for one, can hardly bear to contemplate the state of the nation in a worst case scenario.....say, a nuclear detonation on American soil, or anywhere else for that matter.
It's not any stretch at all at this point to imagine the imposition of a military dictatorship if a crisis emerges, even one that is far short of a nuclear detonation. The "Patriot Acts" have made the enactment of martial law on a virtual whim an all too real possibilty.
None of us should consider the abandonment of hope, but every one of us should at least contemplate what we may reap by not holding this tyranny accountable.
The bastards still have a year and a half to wreak havoc, and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that they won't.
We must not relinquish the pressure on our weak kneed congress.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/23/2007 @ 03:03am
Where's DARLADOON to come and explain why it's "not Nancy's fault, she's cat-herding"?
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 06:58am
do not beleive all news and information about middle east. All the media and other powers has beeen owned. some relaible information can be gotten from here. M iddleeast [fallindirectory.com] Society [pickupinfo.net] Newspaper net
be open mind.. [obtaininfo.net]
Posted by hattaro at 05/23/2007 @ 07:13am
BTW, Mr Nichols?
"That has happened and no matter what games are played with voting procedures, the reality is that the Democratic leadership has failed to lead at the most critical juncture."
So how does this Democratic leadership who caved in, knuckled undered, SURRENDERED to Dubya on the Iraq supplemental....
turn around and IMPEACH him in the next 6 months...or Cheney...or even Gonzales?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 07:35am
Co-Progressive-
Adams did, however feel differently about constitutional republicanism. Back then the arguements between a "republic" and a "democracy" were as acute as the free market-communism battles were between us and the Russians. I've never seen that quote, although I would imagine he was blasting the Jefferson/French Rev camps' notion of "people rule".
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/23/2007 @ 08:11am
May 23, 2007
Quote of the Day
"We must dare to think "unthinkable" thoughts. We must learn to explore all the options and possibilities that confront us in a complex and rapidly changing world." – James William Fulbright
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 08:14am
May 23, 2007
In Iraq, nobody is accountable By Ali al-Fadhily
BAGHDAD - Killings, crime, lack of medical care, the collapse of education - the list goes on. But with the occupation by US-led forces now into its fifth year, and a supposedly democratic government in place, no one knows whom to hold accountable for all that is going wrong.
It is the occupation forces, particularly the United States and Britain, that must be held accountable, many Iraqis say.
"It is good of these people to discuss accountability for theft, but
the most important thing to account for is Iraqi blood," said Numan Ahmed, a human-rights activist from the Adhamiya neighborhood in Baghdad.
The British medical journal Lancet has reported that by last July, 655,000 people had died as "a consequence of the war". It has reported that the risk of death among civilians is now 58 times as high as before the US-led invasion in March 2003.
"By now a million Iraqis have been killed for no reason, and many millions disabled or badly injured just because of some thieves in Baghdad and Washington," Ahmed said. "We are prepared to reveal the documents to condemn them even if takes us a lifetime."
But Iraqis have no means to take action against the occupiers.
The US has not accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has the power to investigate complaints of genocide. The United States took the view that the court could conduct "politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of US military and political officials and personnel".
US opposition to the ICC is in stark contrast to the strong support for the court by most of America's closest allies.
With no doors of justice open to them, many Iraqis are taking to unlawful ways to hit back at occupation forces and government targets.
"The only way to do it is at gunpoint," said Ali Aziz, 32, from Ramadi, 100 kilometers west of Baghdad. "They invaded us at gunpoint, and we find it ridiculous to talk about any other way of getting back what belongs to us."
Aziz said he had lost several friends in attacks by US soldiers. "The whole world is dealing with this in a hypocritical way, and there is only us to claim our rights the way we find proper."
Human-rights group al-Raya filed a case in a court in Fallujah against US forces in 2004, after a massive military crackdown. About three-quarters of all buildings in the city were destroyed or heavily damaged during the US assault that November.
But US-backed Iraqi security forces have targeted the rights group. "The secretary general for the organization has now been arrested by Fallujah police for reasons that we are not aware of, and the organization is not functioning anymore," said a senior member of the group, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"It is not the right time to talk about accountability when daily killings by US and Iraqi soldiers are still ongoing. God knows if it will ever be possible."
A case for accountability could well be made. A judge from the United States wrote at the time of the trial of Nazi war criminals in Nuremberg, Germany, in 1946: "To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
The US-led invasion of Iraq was judged by then-United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan on September 16, 2004, as "an illegal act that contravened the UN Charter".
The lack of accountability appears now to be leading to greater support for armed resistance against occupation forces.
"What accountability are you talking about, sir?" said Abu Jassim of Fallujah, who lost four members of his family when a US bomb destroyed his home during the first US offensive against the city in April 2004. "Americans are criminals, and the whole world is covering up for their crimes." They will be held accountable, he said, by Allah and by "the heroes of the Iraqi resistance".
Iraqis are also angry over destruction of their civilian infrastructure, for which no one has been held responsible.
"The US crime of deliberately crushing Iraqi infrastructure must be looked at as a crime against humanity," said chief engineer Jalal Abdulla at Baghdad's Ministry of Electricity. "They did not have to do this to support their military effort, but they did it just to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths for no reason but cruelty."
Others vent their frustration against what they see as an impotent United Nations. "The UN should be the place for asking those Americans why they committed so many crimes in Iraq," said Baghdad resident Malik Hammad.
Ali al-Fadhily, the IPS correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, a US-based specialist writer on Iraq who travels extensively in the region.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IE23Ak02.html
(Inter Press Service)
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 08:15am
Surge in Violence Accompanies Proposed Surge in Troops by Dahr Jamail With Ali al-Fadhily
BAGHDAD - Violence and bombings have only increased after the proposed "surge" of 21,500 U.S. troops in Iraq.
"There is no argument that U.S. troops have lost the Iraqi war all over the country, and the only two solutions left are either an increase of 200,000 soldiers or a scheduled withdrawal after certain arrangements with local fighters in order to avoid casualties and tremendous chaos in the country."
"Their goal is to crush as many oppositionists as possible," Duraid Aziz, a 46-year-old lawyer and military analyst from Mosul in the north who was visiting Baghdad, told IPS. "The first step of their security plan was to raid the Adhamiya Sunni area [of Baghdad] while Mehdi [Shia militia of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr] death squads continue to kill Iraqis under the eyes of the U.S. Army."
"This is genocide, and anyone with eyes can see it," Muhammad Haddad, a human rights activist from Baghdad, told IPS.
Kamil Abbas, a high school teacher from Iskandariya, south of Baghdad, told IPS that U.S. and Iraqi forces "committed another massacre after the slaughter in Najaf recently" and that it took place "in Samra just south of Baghdad."
"They [U.S. and Iraqi forces] will keep doing this because they do not accept for any Iraqi to feel like a free human being," he added.
The Brookings Institution report listed 185 attacks a day against U.S. and Iraqi security forces during the month of December 2006. That is the highest ever, according to the institution.
More U.S. troops have been killed in the last four months in Iraq than in any comparable period since the occupation began in April 2003.
Iraqi authorities announced Feb. 5 that at least 1,000 Iraqis had been killed in the previous week in political violence.
"The increase in U.S. troops only means an increase in the agonies of the Iraqi people," Dr. Salam al-Dulaimy, an academic who studied at Baghdad University, told IPS.
The increased military presence does not seem to have unnerved the resistance. "Let Bush bring more morons to Iraq," a young man from Fallujah who was visiting Baghdad told IPS. "We will send them all to hellfire. These people seem to have not learned enough from previous lessons, and our school is still open."
But Iraqis are paying a heavy price for the unrest. One in seven has left home, according to UN officials. This is the largest movement of people in the Middle East since the war that followed the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.
Violence displaces an estimated 1,300 Iraqis every day. More than 1.7 million have been displaced so far.
(Inter Press Service)
February 14, 2007
http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=10516
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 08:33am
San Francisco Chronicle
Bush could double force by Christmas
Stewart M. Powell, Hearst Newspapers Tuesday, May 22, 2007
(05-22) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.
The little-noticed second surge, designed to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq, is being executed by sending more combat brigades and extending tours of duty for troops already there.
The actions could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year if the Pentagon overlaps arriving and departing combat brigades. Separately, when additional support troops are included in this second troop increase, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 -- a record-high number -- by the end of the year.
The numbers were arrived at by an analysis of deployment orders by Hearst Newspapers.
"It doesn't surprise me that they're not talking about it," said retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, a former U.S. commander of NATO troops in Bosnia, referring to the Bush administration. "I think they would be very happy not to have any more attention paid to this."
The first surge was prominently announced by President Bush in a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, when he ordered five more combat brigades to join 15 brigades already in Iraq.
The buildup was designed to give commanders the 20 combat brigades Pentagon planners said were needed to provide security in Baghdad and western Anbar province.
Since then, the Pentagon has extended combat tours for units in Iraq from 12 months to 15 months and announced the deployment of additional brigades.
Taken together, the steps could put elements of as many as 28 combat brigades in Iraq by Christmas, according the deployment orders examined by Hearst Newspapers.
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 08:42am
Stay the course. Don't rock the boat. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Have a great day. Let's do lunch. Fine.
"Nobodies right, if everybody's wrong" (CSN&Y, early '70's)
Posted by lewwelge at 05/23/2007 @ 08:53am
Comparison Study
Vietnam Troop Levels (T L) _$_______Iraq War_____
Year______TL___US Dead _$_Year__US Dead___TL_
1965__184,300____1,594__$_2006__*3000__140,000
1966 __385,300___ 6,053__$_2007__14,829__170,000
1967__485,600___11,058__$_2008 _27,731 _200,000
1968__536,100___16,511__$_2009__42,983__210,000
1969__475,200___11,527__$_2010__30,088__200,000
1970__334,600____6,065__$_2011__15,645__150,000
1971__156,800____2,348__$_2012___5,476__120,000
1972___24,200_____ 561__$_2013___1,314__100,000
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 08:56am
SANDSTORMS IN IRAQ - SPREADING RADIOACTIVE POISON TO EVERY SOLDIER
"When a DU shell is fired, it ignites upon impact. Uranium, plus traces of plutonium and americium, vaporize into tiny, ceramic particles of radioactive dust. Once inhaled, uranium oxides lodge in the body and emit radiation indefinitely. A single particle of DU lodged in a lymph node can devastate the entire immune system ..."
Once exploded, DU munitions turn instantly into fine dust. This dust then mixes with the dust on the ground and starts to kill civilians who breathe it into their lungs. If people could avoid breathing this dust, they could avoid contamination and prevent the onset of slow, agonizing radioactive death.
Most of the warhead becomes either extremely small fragments -- though larger ones are possible -- and a whole lot of radiation dust. Thus, when a person travels through the battlefield, they breathe in the particles that are now lingering in the air, plus they get a lot of radiation on their clothes. Let us hear from an expert on this type of exposure.
"The Royal Society of England published data showing that battlefield soldiers who inhale or swallow high levels of DU can suffer kidney failure within days. ["Depleted Uranium May Stop Kidneys In Days," Rob Edwards, New Scientist.com, 3-12-02; also "Uranium Weapons Too Hot to Handle," Rob Edwards, New Scientist.co.uk, 6-9-99]
Other soldiers that breathe in lesser amounts do not suffer immediately, but have a high chance of breathing in enough to cause serious problems later on. How many of the ground soldiers are contaminated enough with Depleted Uranium residue?
"Any soldier now in Iraq who has not inhaled lethal radioactive dust is not breathing." [Death By Slow Burn - How America Nukes Its Own Troops", Worthington, Amy The Idaho Observer, 4/16/03]
Did you catch this statement? ""Any soldier now in Iraq who has not inhaled lethal radioactive dust is not breathing."
This means every single soldier -- and every single civilian -- has tiny particles of Depleted Uranium dust lodged in their lungs, emitting radioactivity throughout their body 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
This medical tragedy was confirmed to me by phone by my retired Army Major source. In fact, he confirmed the statistics of the Gulf War I veterans, which we review in shortly. Virtually 100% of the ground troops are radiated to a degree that is troublesome; if Gulf War I is any guide, 75% of the men now serving on the ground will develop one or more of the exceedingly serious medical conditions we list below, in the section covering Gulf War I. In fact, the soldiers who come after the fighting troops to occupy and administer the land are the ones who are most affected! This radioactive dust is virtually impossible to clean up because it is so fine and covers everything -- from burned out and wrecked vehicles to houses in the area to the ground on which children may ultimately play. In residential areas like Basra, this consideration is frightening.
DU weapons emit 'Alpha' particle dose to a single cell from U-238, which is 50 times the annual dose level. Cancer is initiated with one alpha particle, its daughter isotopes effect generations as the isotopes bio-concentrate in plants and animals and travel up the food chain. It is a nuclear weapon ... They enter the body through the lungs, the digestive system, or breaks in the skin. One gram of DU releases more than 12,000 particles per second. The radiation slowly kills the cells that make life possible. The Gulf War Syndrome of 1991 did just that (reported by Dr. Asaf Durakovic, Professor of Medicine, Georgetown University)."
The induction of DU weapons in 1991 in Iraq ... broke a 46-year taboo. This Trojan Horse of nuclear war ... continues to be used more and more. DU remains radioactive longer than the age of the earth (estimated at 4.5 billion years). The long-term effects from over a decade of DU exposures ... are devastating. The increased quantities of radioactive material ... used in Afghanistan are 3 to 5 times greater than Iraq, 1991. In Iraq, 2003, they are already estimated to be 6 to 10 times 1991, and will travel through a larger area and affect many more people, babies and unborn. Countries within a 1000-mile radius of Baghdad and Kabul are being affected by radiation poisoning ..." [Ibid.]
"The induction of DU weapons in 1991 in Iraq ... broke a 46-year taboo. This Trojan Horse of nuclear war ... continues to be used more and more. DU remains radioactive longer than the age of the earth (estimated at 4.5 billion years). The long-term effects from over a decade of DU exposures ... are devastating. The increased quantities of radioactive material ... used in Afghanistan are 3 to 5 times greater than Iraq, 1991. In Iraq, 2003, they are already estimated to be 6 to 10 times 1991, and will travel through a larger area and affect many more people, babies and unborn. Countries within a 1000-mile radius of Baghdad and Kabul are being affected by radiation poisoning ..." [Ibid.]
Take a map of the Middle East and then calculate a radius showing 1,000 miles from these two cities, and you will discover that every single country -- except Israel -- on which DU dust is blowing is a Non-Integrating State (NEWS1833 and NEWS1906). Countries due West of Iraq receive a fraction of the DU dust blowing Eastward, because of the prevailing winds.
The good Admiral then drops the real bombshell quantification statistic:
"If we think cancer is a problem now, wait until more DU is released in wars against terror and for 'regime change' and on 'mistaken' Intelligence reports. More than 500 tons of DU munitions have been dispensed in Afghanistan. Professor Yagasaki calculated that 800 tons of DU is the atomicity equivalent to 83,000 Nagasaki bombs in a paper presented at the 'World Uranium Weapons Conference' in Hamburg in October 2003) ... The amount of DU used in Iraq in 2003 is equivalent to nearly 250,000 Nagasaki bombs." [Ibid.]
Today, Iraq is thoroughly and heavily contaminated with uranium poisoning at the level where life cannot be sustained for very many years. Further, this type of contamination lasts for 4.5 billion years. If you study the map of the "Non-Integrating States" we show on NEWS1833, you will realize that the winds are blowing this radiated dust 1,000 miles to the southeast if the Sharqi or Sirocco winds are blowing and to the northwest if the Shamal winds are blowing. Therefore, all of the "Non-Integrating States" to the Southeast and Northwest of Iraq and Afghanistan are being irradiated! The Indian Admiral also said that New Delhi was getting irradiated uranium dust from Afghanistan, 640 miles southeast of Kabul.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n2063.cfm
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 09:11am
The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.
"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.
"I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as opposition groups within Iran," said Vali Nasr, adjunct senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
"And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow," Nasr said.
Other "lethal" findings have authorized CIA covert actions against al Qaeda, terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams.
"The entire plan has been blessed by Abrams, in particular," said one intelligence source familiar with the plan. "And Hadley had to put his chop on it."
Abrams' last involvement with attempting to destabilize a foreign government led to criminal charges.
He pleaded guilty in October 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about the Reagan administration's ill-fated efforts to destabilize the Nicaraguan Sandinista government in Central America, known as the Iran-Contra affair. Abrams was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush in December 1992.
In June 2001, Abrams was named by then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to head the National Security Council's office for democracy, human rights and international operations. On Feb. 2, 2005, National Security Advisor Hadley appointed Abrams deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy, one of the nation's most senior national security positions.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 09:13am
More evidence that there isn't much distinction between the two parties. And once again, Feingold impresses.
Posted by SRJENKINS
Amen.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/23/2007 @ 09:34am
wow,democratic congress after all the blah blah blah about how tough they were going to be to w to end this war ,american people looks like the democrats are STILL JUST AS SPINELESS AS ALWAYS some things never change ,unless AL GORE runs for president in 2008 cause he already won once in 2000 we all know cause he is the only one who is NOT spineless , republicans after what the democratic congress did with the war spending should be rejoicing cause it shows them how spineless and cowardly the democrats in congress really are
Posted by studlyguy at 05/23/2007 @ 09:41am
Posted by STUDLYGUY 05/23/2007 @ 09:41am
The dems are just being Dems...and they are showing you, the uber left for whom nothing matters except Iraq and Bush lied,...that you do not matter and you aren't a threat to them(or her), as many of us have said here ad nauseum, you have no where else to go and most will vote for them anyway. Their mendacity you will accept and Bush, without real evidence that is never filed or used to proscecute..you believe as reigion.
Do we need to hold investigations, since the Dems LIED to get into power? Should we impeach the Dems?
Posted by john maasch at 05/23/2007 @ 09:59am
John Maash, --- good point
Posted by studlyguy at 05/23/2007 @ 10:12am
Oh please, the repub new con 'supporters'/servicers of dic'tater philosophy, create a mountain out a mole hill consistently and want to say 'see the dems can't do shit', but only per exec veto and repubs/Lie'berman service hsuB/Dick. What this proves is that there's a lot more to be done and enough corrupt perv death loving greedy repub's weren't kicked out.
I still say the quickest and only way to stop this war is to impeach in succession: Frito, cHeney, then hsuB. Otherwise we have a lot more death to deal with. The hsuB admin is the most corrupt pieces of shit to currently walk the earth and the longer they're in office the longer the world will be point their middle finger at us as a corrupt rogue nation.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 10:16am
maasch-The Democrats,as a group, did not say they would get us out of the war.Some individual Democrats said they would do something to get us out,but we won't know until they vote which may have lied.There are pro war Democrats who made no such promises.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/23/2007 @ 10:25am
I don't care about this - so what if the Democrats are weak. So what if the disaster goes on - those troops are not innocent - they have a right to refuse illegal orders. Bush was going to veto anything other than a blank check, and his only goal was to get past Memorial Day without the funds.
Americans are not so solidly against this disaster in Iraq as Liberals think. Sure, they are a little bit against it - but not so damn much that they actually give a damn. Americans are watching CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS - they havent gotten tired of being lied to, condescended to by idiots who call themselves experts. Americans are only mildly against this disaster - they were more "for" it, than they are now "against" it. Americans were more animated about killing Iraqis than they are now to stop the killing. Americans have not suffered enough yet because of the disaster in Iraq - when Americans have suffered enough, then, they will turn against George Bushs war based on lies with some conviction. Americans are for the most part only aping their opposition, based on the fact that it is seen as a failure - if it was going the other way they would support it. Americans still don't give a damn about the Iraqis that they have slaughtered or condemned to a life in present day Iraq.
So it just isn't time. The Democrats made their stand, they drew their vetos, How would you like to have seen Memorial Day come along, and the troops don't get the funds, and the same media that sells us wars would be selling us how the whole disaster happened because of those funds. You Naderites should have stopped the war in Iraq back in November 2000. This war could have been stopped in November 2000 by voting for Al Gore - there would have been no war in Iraq - but Nader came out and said "theres no difference" right in West Beach Florida on 11/1/2000 and got 90,000 fools to vote for him. Its easier to stop a war before it starts than after. It will be stopped too - and Americans aren't ready yet. Zero lives are saved by drawing vetos, Zero lives are saved by coming up with less than 50 votes.
Supposedly Democrats are = to Republicans, just as bad as Republicans, 99% as bad as Republicans, just as warmongering as Republicans - and yet we are also to believe that a vote for a Democrat is a mandate against a Republican war.
Posted by LiberalPride at 05/23/2007 @ 10:30am
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE
It's all Nader's fault? No. What the Dems in Congress have done is only one more example of why a lot of people chose to cast a ballot for Nader.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/23/2007 @ 10:36am
Afterall, did the vast majority of Dems not endorse this war way back in the beginning?
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/23/2007 @ 10:37am
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. May 15-16, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"If you were a member of Congress, which one of the following proposals on Iraq would you vote for? Setting a specific deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Setting benchmarks for Iraq to meet to receive continued help from the U.S., but without a deadline for withdrawal. Giving the troop surge time to work before setting any benchmarks or deadlines."
"If you had to choose, which is more important to you personally: for the United States to succeed and establish a stable Iraq or for U.S. troops to get out of Iraq?"
Succeed______Get Out______Both_____Unsure
___34_________46_________16_________3
"Who do you believe more about the true status of the war in Iraq: President George W. Bush or Army General David Petraeus?" Options rotated
Bush________Petraeus______Both_____Neither______Unsure
_14____________51__________6_________15__________14
"Which one of the following best describes how you feel about the situation in Iraq? Do you believe the United States can still be successful in Iraq, is losing but has not lost, or has lost the war in Iraq?"
Can Still Be Successful__Losing But Hasn't Lost__Has Lost__Unsure
________33_______________31_____________26_________10
"If the United States fails in its efforts to establish a stable Iraq, who do you think will be most to blame: President George W. Bush, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Democrats in Congress, Republicans in Congress, or reporters and the media?" Options rotated
President Bush_____________________37
Reporters and the media__________8
Democrats in Congress_________7
Donald Rumsfeld______________5
Republicans in Congress____________1
The Iraqis_____________________5
Combination________________28
Unsure_____________________9
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 10:40am
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 05/23/2007 @ 10:30am
Might as well forget that argument, LP. I tried it. The Naderites will take NO responsibility nor accept that if ONLY 500 Nader voters in Florida in 2000 had dumped their "principles" and voted for the "lesser of two evils" (Gore)....Gore would have won Florida, becomme President, and (despite the claims of some...sorry, JOHN) NOT invaded Iraq and precipitated a failed occupation.
STUDLYGUY would have gotten Al Gore as President back in 2000...and we would have been a HELLUVA lot better off.
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 10:40am
Most of the public already see the repubs in congress as worthless. That they're supporting this war just helps in kicking out:
The Harris Poll. April 20-23, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"How would you rate the job Republicans in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"
Date________Excellent/Pretty Good______Only Fair/Poor
4/20-23/07_________22__________________74
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 10:45am
Waiting for the Democrats to do something, anything that looks like action is like waiting for oil to boil. Your fellow posters make sense to me, but what do I know.
Amusing comments from a poster on another site, confronted me in defense of the Democrats and Congress. He or she said Democrats are doing their job and leaning very hard on the Bush, with the great pressure of Congress. They are leaning hard to get rid of Gonzo and then will move on to impeach Bush? It takes much hard work and time for Congress, He followed with, my qualifications stating that know nothing and am a twit who does not know how Congress works. It akes time and the Democrats have only been in office for several months. My thoughts, is he talking about filling in the Grand Canyon.
Actually, I hope he is correct, when he is saying that I am a know nothing twit.
Posted by Leefeller at 05/23/2007 @ 10:48am
HSUB
One word-
links
Peace
Posted by drhammer at 05/23/2007 @ 10:58am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/23/2007 @ 10:45am
HSUB, you DO know that DEMOCRATS control both the House and Senate of the US Congress....uh, right?
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 11:12am
Okay...since we have both parties supporting "the war," and this apparently is going to remain an election issue which the Dems are trying to hold us hostage on, my question for the upcoming election is who or what party is going to give us the best shot at killing the insurrection and taking firm control of Iraq for US and multi-national interests?
We need a strong military kind of guy who isn't afraid to pull the trigger and to use whatever means is necessary, including the draft. Hmmmmm...........maybe the Repubs have a good shot at retaining the WH and taking back the majority in Congress. Since Dems can't lead, and since they can't resolve this issue NOW, I think the most important issue that we face - WINNING IN IRAQ - may just be better left for Republicans since as the Dems assert its a Republican war which they support.
Goodbye Harry & Nancy.....glad you got your pork pushed through...but at such a sacrifice to your party. Enjoy your short lived ride and rule.
Posted by OneVote at 05/23/2007 @ 11:27am
HSUB, you DO know that DEMOCRATS control both the House and Senate of the US Congress....uh, right?
Posted by MASK 05/23/2007 @ 11:12am
When there is a veto proof dem control congress sure but you do know that right? All greedy perv repubs have to do is sustain a hsuB veto. Or even then all Lie'berman has to do to be a repub w/no strings attached to the dems is switch, poof no dem senate. But you already know that, right?
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 11:42am
More repubs will be voted out in '08. No way repubs will win a thing except for those that are against hsuB. A lot is happening between now and then with a lot more damning evidence of new con 'supporter'/servicer of dic'tater phylosophy corruption, impeachment articles and resignations. '08 will be a bigger landslide for dems than '04. Especially as the death counts increase and our ready troops are deminnished.
One other note, what can the exec do to trump a legit congressional impeachment?
Thought hsuB couldn't get any lower... yep.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 11:53am
There is one relevant advantage to this and that is that we will now know if the war supporters claims about AQ wanting us out of Iraq are true.AQ now knows beyond any doubt that the Democrats aren't going to get us out of Iraq which means that AQ has no choice,but to go by what Bush said and that is that he will get the troops out once the violence subsides.If AQ really wants us out then they will stop their end of the violence and use whatever influence they have to stop as much violence as possible.We'll also be able to see how much influence they really have.Debunking pro war propaganda is,of course, a good step towards peace.Of course,Bush saying that could cause him problems because if the violence suddenly subsides what is he to do?Declare victory and leave knowing that AQ set him up?
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/23/2007 @ 12:01pm
Who the Sam-hell are you kidding? You pwogwessives will vote for any corporate slimeball the DNC *tells* you to vote for. You voted for "Send More Troops!" Kerry in '04 - You'll vote for "Stay the Course" Hillary in '08.
Stop kidding yourselves, skip the Kucinich/Gravel/Gore bullshit and send those checks into MoveOn or the Pwoggie Democwats of Amewica or whatever DNC frontgroup makes you fell better. Hillary needs the money.
Posted by AlanSmithee at 05/23/2007 @ 12:01pm
HSUB
One word-
links
Peace
Posted by DRHAMMER 05/23/2007 @ 10:58am
Which ones?
http://www.pollingreport.com/
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 12:03pm
The question of right-wing terrorism
By Rick Perlstein on May 22, 2007 - 8:25pm. Stop it, stop it right now. Stop pretending Islamicists - or environmentalists or animal rights activists (which are, ridiculously, federal law enforcement and non-governmental terrorism-watchers' next most obsessive concern) - are the only imminent terrorist threats to our nation. We now know that students at Liberty University were ready to napalm protesters at Jerry Falwell's funeral. One of the suspects is a soldier at Fort Benning. [UPDATE: Falwell gave the kid a scholarship.]
If the media does not start connecting some dots, they will have abdicated their citizenzship duties. How many times has the nation potentially come within a hair's breadth of suffering a right-wing terrorist attack this spring? As of today, three, or possibly six times - at least that we know about.
• Late in April, 150 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers carried out simultaneous raids in four Alabama counties in a sweep that yielded 130 grenades, a rocket launcher, and 2,500 rounds of ammunition.. In the town of Trussville, it took a U-haul truck to cart away all the materiel. At the Collinsville camper belonging to militia "major" Taymond Dillard, agents first had to defuse trip-wires rigged to explode hand grenades to kill intruders.
• Right-wing vigilantes arrested in a scuffle at one of the May 1 immigration marches, in Washington D.C., was found to have a stash of automatic weapons and explosives in his home.
• Now this, the violence allegedly thwarted at Falwell's funeral. One of the suspects is a soldier at Fort Benning - yes, he traveled all the way from Georgia with his munitions. Another was a high school student.
After the Alabama incident, I set up a Google News alert to learn more about the "Alabama Free Militia," formerly known as the "Naval Militia." But there was no followup coverage that I could discover. None.
I go back and forth about what level of alarmism is appropriate when discussing the possibility of right-wing violence. On the one hand, reviewiewing it in the New York Times Book Review, I found Chris Hedges predictions in American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America irresponsibly vague and abstract. On the other hand, when a reporter named John Cloud published a profile of Ann Coulter on the cover of Time magazine that found her little more than a kicky diversion from boring politics as usual, I sent him an angry, even patronizing, letter:
The last time figures like Coulter were being mainstreamed for public consumption in this way was 1994-95. People like Gordon Liddy--who, recall, was "joking" to his listeners to shoot federal agents in the head.
This pushed the limits of the acceptable far to the right, and vulnerable, nutty people felt licensed to blow up buildings because of it.
There will be right-wing violence in the next year. Of that I have no doubt. And people who've served to push the limits of the acceptable far to the right by mainstreaming people who spew hate rhetoric, talk violence, and make things up will bear some measure of responsibility.
That was 2005, and there wasn't any right-wing violence (that made the news at least) in 2006. I was wrong.
On the other hand, I'm even more confident that if John Kerry had been elected president, the Secret Service would have been burdened with assassination attempts of a degree unprecedented in history. There is an astonishingly sizable population in America that doesn't consider any Democratic president legitimate - "not our president" was a right-wing refrain from the moment of Bill Clinton's inauguration; no less than a United States senator, Jesse Helms, said that if the President visited North Carolina he ought to wear a flak jacket ("Who will rid me of this meddlesome president?." In the case of Kerry, the situation was complicated by the existence of plenty of mentally unbalanced former special forces officers convinced the man was literally a Manchurian candidate.
My obsession with the question will always be shaped by my experience of late 1994 and early 1995. I was absolutely engrossed by the rise of the Gingrich "Contract with America" Congress. It was what turned me, eventually, into a full-time student of the right. How was it that so many of my fellow citizens were taking things for granted that were absolutely the opposite of what I then took for granted? It's part of the fascination of belonging to such a big, complex country like America: we're all surrounded by people who are utterly exotic to us, and us to them. I started listening to more right-wing talk radio, something I had always done casually before Clinton was president.
I couldn't get over the escalation in vitriol. I vividly recall, yes, G. Gordon Liddy's injunction to listeners to "shoot to kill" ATF agents.
(It was only later, when I stared studying Watergate, when I wondered about the moral compass of a movement that would elevate as a spokesman a man who was literally thrown in jail for his eagerness to commit violence in service to subversion to the Constitution.)
I felt, at a certain point, that something very ugly would soon happen.
Something ugly did soon happen: Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
What is the line between vigilence and paranoia? I really don't know. I only know this, to return to my original point: it's far past the time for the media to start tracking these arrests as a trend--before the next arrest comes post-explosion, not pre.
http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/question_right_wing_terrorism
And lets not forget Delay's brownshirts in Florida storming the vote count.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 12:13pm
"One word-
links
Peace
Posted by DRHAMMER
"LINKS"
Thats the German for...LEFT,...you know...
Posted by john maasch at 05/23/2007 @ 12:22pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/23/2007 @ 10:45am
I would expect the repubs to garner poor results in congress...these guys were fired and what left of their base is pissed at them....
You should focus on the numbers of the dems in congress and how their people feel about them...and if they get good ratings, then I guess the anti war faction means nothing and is not threat to anyone in the dem party...would be my interpretation.
Posted by john maasch at 05/23/2007 @ 12:26pm
"One word-
links
Peace
Posted by DRHAMMER
"LINKS"
Thats the German for...LEFT,...you know...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/23/2007 @ 12:22pm
"One word- "left". Peace. As in turn 'left' for PEACE vs turn 'right' for WAR...
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 12:27pm
David's "I thought so" from his blog (DavidCorn.com).......
May 23, 2007
Too Clever by Half
In politics, a clear loss is sometimes better than a murky win--and it's certainly better than a murky loss. At the start of the recent tiff between George W. Bush and the congressional Democrats over Iraq war funding, I wondered if the Democrats would trip over their own fancy footwork, as they tried to design a bill that did not defund the war but that attempted to push Bush to end the war. Well, stumble they did.....
So at the end of the day--if we are at the end of the day--the Democratic majority has apparently failed....
This all could have been handled more simply and elegantly....
.....Pelosi can try....Instead,....she was rolled by the White House and the Republicans......
Posted by David Corn at 10:30 AM
Posted by Happy at 05/23/2007 @ 12:27pm
"Most of the public already see the repubs in congress as worthless. That they're supporting this war just helps in kicking out: "
The repubs are not in power and not in a position to do anything.....the dems are the polls you should be concerned about...until they are thrown out, which may be sooner than you think...
Posted by john maasch at 05/23/2007 @ 12:27pm
Where the heck is DARLADOON with THIS explanation for why Nancy did what she did....
"No I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD"-----"Joliet Jake" "Blues Brothers"
hehe
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 12:33pm
"When there is a veto proof dem control congress sure but you do know that right? All greedy perv repubs have to do is sustain a hsuB veto. Or even then all Lie'berman has to do to be a repub w/no strings attached to the dems is switch, poof no dem senate. But you already know that, right?
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/23/2007 @ 11:42am
Veto proof party in both houses...then you are for one party rule through out govt...but I thougfht when one party has the WH and one has the Congress, that this balance is good for the nation ..or is one party rule, with veto proof number s only good for dems, but bad for repubs?
Am I missing something here...the site that laments lack of "Checks and Balance" (even tho explained it is in branches, not partys) in govt and wants split govbernence?
Posted by john maasch at 05/23/2007 @ 12:33pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/23/2007 @ 11:42am
Oh, is THAT their excuse, HSUB?
Okay, that makes sense.
Now explain how that same Congress is going to impeach Bush and Cheney and Gonzales?
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 12:34pm
Nader got LESS VOTES than the Green Party he supposedly wanted to build - in 2004. Ralph Nader said "the Green Party is part of the problem" - yet people didnt listen to him because they knew he was LYING. Ralph Nader betrayed the party he wanted to build, in 2004, and the party he wanted to build, BEAT HIM. Ha, Ha, Ha.
The Democrats arent dumb, they are playing a big game, not a little game, not a game over 43$ of matching funds to run 30 second spots 4 years from now. The Democrats are not perfect - nobody is going to do the job that I would do, other than me. Nobody is going to agree with you 100%.
I really think it looks like shhit that the Democrats want to attach the minimum wage bill. My advice to them is to make lemonade out of lemons: REID SHOULD TAKE BUSHS BILL, THROW IT ON THE GROUND IN FRONT OF THE CAMERAS, AND SAY BUSH COME GET YOUR FUCCKING BILL SO YOU CAN KILL MORE AMERICAN. That is what I would do if I was Reid - word for fucking word - but I am not Mr. Reid, Mr. Reid lives in Nevada. If Reid did it my way it would certainly work, but the only way Reid is going to do it my way is if I was Reid.
Posted by LiberalPride at 05/23/2007 @ 12:36pm
REID SHOULD TAKE BUSHS BILL, THROW IT ON THE GROUND IN FRONT OF THE CAMERAS, AND SAY BUSH COME GET YOUR FUCCKING BILL SO YOU CAN KILL MORE AMERICANs.
Posted by LiberalPride at 05/23/2007 @ 12:37pm
REID SHOULD TAKE BUSHS BILL, THROW IT ON THE GROUND IN FRONT OF THE CAMERAS, AND SAY BUSH COME GET YOUR FUCCKING BILL SO YOU CAN KILL MORE AMERICANs.
Posted by LiberalPride at 05/23/2007 @ 12:37pm
"'08 will be a bigger landslide for dems than '04."
What landslide in 04?
Posted by john maasch at 05/23/2007 @ 12:39pm
The repubs are not in power and not in a position to do anything.....the dems are the polls you should be concerned about...until they are thrown out, which may be sooner than you think...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/23/2007 @ 12:27pm
They're sustainning a hsuB veto. That's enough to have the hsuB blood on their hands too.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 12:50pm
Now explain how that same Congress is going to impeach Bush and Cheney and Gonzales?
Posted by MASK 05/23/2007 @ 12:34pm
Well, would you want to see the evidence first or just keep 'supporting' the new cons/servicing the dic'tater philosophy, no matter what-- too? So too, I think there are enough repubs that will separate from the hsuB/Dick as more facts and bodies pile up.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 12:54pm
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 05/23/2007 @ 12:36pm
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 05/23/2007 @ 12:37pm
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 05/23/2007 @ 12:37pm
Okay, just saying....somebody may need a little nap!
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 12:55pm
So too, I think there are enough repubs that will separate from the hsuB/Dick as more facts and bodies pile up.
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/23/2007 @ 12:54pm
So, "enough repubs that will separate from the hsuB/Dick" to impeach and remove them from office...
but WON'T vote to override an extremely un-popular war.
You....really....think.....that...way?
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 12:56pm
.....the site that laments lack of "Checks and Balance" (even tho explained it is in branches, not partys) in govt and wants split govbernence?
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/23/2007 @ 12:33pm
You just scored the TKO!
Posted by Happy at 05/23/2007 @ 12:59pm
Posted by HAPPY 05/23/2007 @ 12:59pm
I hear crickets....one party rule is good for Progressives, or Cuba...but not repubs/conservatives...
Posted by john maasch at 05/23/2007 @ 1:09pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/23/2007 @ 1:09pm
The old "one party rule" charge is in for a LOT of "egg on face" for the liberal punditry and bloggers once the Dems have the White House and Congress.
They can't HONESTLY explain why "one party rule" (on its own merit) was bad under Bush and the Republican, but will NOT be bad under the "one party rule" of Democrats controlling the Executive and Legislative.
The ONLY possible response is to point to the Supreme Court and claim THAT is "still under Republican control" and pawn it off on that. Which would then raise the logical question..."Okay, so to prevent 'one party rule' you want the Court to STAY in Republican hands....right?"...followed by a lot of coughing and sputtering and hacking.
I ALWAYS thought that canard of "one party rule" was a cheap rhetorical stunt (supposed to remind one of the Soviets or fascist regimes), but with a built-in self-defeating TRAP for themselves and their inability to explain why they supposedly WANTED "divided government" with Bush....but won't with Hillary, Obama, or Edwards!
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 1:18pm
Veto proof party in both houses...then you are for one party rule through out govt...but I thougfht when one party has the WH and one has the Congress, that this balance is good for the nation ..or is one party rule, with veto proof number s only good for dems, but bad for repubs?
Am I missing something here...the site that laments lack of "Checks and Balance" (even tho explained it is in branches, not partys) in govt and wants split govbernence?
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/23/2007 @ 12:33pm
On important policy such as war, even with the supermajority number of members in both houses, the veto proofiness requires legitimacy. eg. 1975 did not see congress pass all leg brought up willy nilly, now did it, even with a dem pres too? However those kind of dem wins are what's in store for the repub perv/unconstitutional/war/death/corrupt/greed new con lovers come '08 per repub post-impeachment maliase.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 1:39pm
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 05/23/2007 @ 12:36pm | ignore this person
Wow. Not only are you utterly and completely wrong about every single thing in your post (eg 2004 prez results Nader = 463,653, Cobb = 119,859) but you have the ethics of a mentally ill weasel to boot. Welcome to WingNut Land.
Posted by AlanSmithee at 05/23/2007 @ 1:44pm
You....really....think.....that...way?
Posted by MASK 05/23/2007 @ 12:56pm
Look at the repub poll numbers for the Iraq occupation-- they are totally different that the dem or inde numbers with far more support still. And that's where the repubs in congress are, their base. However there's a crack in the repub polls where there's proof of corruption (ie. Foley, Cunningham, Ney, Delay, Burns,etc.) -- thus repubs are more willing to turn on proven corruption, not so much on terror baited killing over there and not in my pretty yard please repub constituencies here.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 1:52pm
The old "one party rule" charge is in for a LOT of "egg on face" for the liberal punditry and bloggers once the Dems have the White House and Congress.
They can't HONESTLY explain why "one party rule" (on its own merit) was bad under Bush and the Republican, but will NOT be bad under the "one party rule" of Democrats controlling the Executive and Legislative.
Posted by MASK 05/23/2007 @ 1:18pm
Er, when it's a repub party of proven new con greedy pervs, lovers of death, tortue and unconstitutional dic'tater philosophy, those new con repub in league with a vote stealing AG/DoJ kastapo tackic injustice boot licking GOP/MIC repubs. Sure it's bad.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 2:03pm
Should read:
Er, when it's a repub party of proven new con greedy pervs, lovers of death, tortue and unconstitutional dic'tater philosophy, those new con repubs that are in league with a vote stealing AG/DoJ kastapo tackic for injustice boot licking GOP/MIC repubs. Sure, it's a bad thing.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 2:07pm
Torture
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 2:26pm
Perhaps hsuB made dems an offer they couldn't refuse:
The study views the impact of the Justice Department's vision on the fight against public corruption and reveals the non-proportionate political profiling of elected Democratic officials.
We presented the preliminary data through August 2004 at the Southern Speech Communication Annual meeting in April 2005 in Baton Rouge and as a refereed panel paper with data through December 2004 at the November 2005 annual meeting of the National Communication Association.
We compare political profiling to racial profiling by presenting the results (January 2001 through December 2006) of the U.S. Attorneys' federal investigation and/or indictment of 375 elected officials. The distribution of party affiliation of the sample is compared to the available normative data (50% Dem, 41% GOP, and 9% Ind.).
Data* indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven (7) times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops.
Our paper explores the role of the fourth estate and others in detecting such profiling and concludes that what is really needed is transparency, the highlights of which are noted below.
The current Bush Republican Administration appears to be the first to have engaged in political profiling.
http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/ 20070212_political_profiling.html
A study of reported federal investigations of elected officials and candidates shows that the Bush administration's Justice Department pursues Democrats far more than Republicans. 79 percent of elected officials and candidates who've faced a federal investigation (a total of 379) between 2001 and 2006 were Democrats, the study found – only 18 percent were Republicans. During that period, Democrats made up 50 percent of elected officeholders and office seekers during the time period, and 41 percent were Republicans during that period, according to the study.
"The chance of such a heavy Democratic-Republican imbalance occurring at random is 1 in 10,000," according to the study's authors.
The vast disparity came not from the more high-profile investigations of state-wide or federal officeholders (the disparity there was 55-44 Democratic), but from the far more numerous investigations of local officials. The study found that 85 percent of the 309 local officials and candidates who faced investigation were Democrats. {er, obviously attempting to build a permanent base... and not in the desert}
The Justice Department did not respond to our repeated requests for commment.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002420.php
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 3:16pm
I'd say the DoJ kastopo usage has legs on it:
Right-Wing ‘Voting Rights' Group Has Disappeared
Just as the Bush administration's claims of voter fraud are being dismantled, so too is the American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR) -- a conservative front group that identified pervasive election fraud. Slate reports:
With no notice and little comment, ACVR -- the only prominent nongovernmental organization claiming that voter fraud is a major problem, a problem warranting strict rules such as voter-ID laws -- simply stopped appearing at government panels and conferences. Its Web domain name has suddenly expired, its reports are all gone (except where they have been preserved by its opponents), and its general counsel, Mark "Thor" Hearne, has cleansed his résumé of affiliation with the group. Hearne won't speak to the press about ACVR's demise. No other group has taken up the ‘voter fraud' mantra.
ACVR was led by Bush/Cheney '04's general counsel and produced such reports as "Democrat operatives far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression in 2004 than Republicans." Many of its studies targeted presidential battle ground states.
ACVR, whose work has been commended by Karl Rove, was part of the Bush administration's "aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates." Conservatives cited ACVR's studies as evidence of pervasive voter fraud.
Of the 38 cases of voter fraud the Justice Department prosecuted between 2002-05, 14 were thrown out. As the New York Times notes, "In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people."
But of those 38 prosecutions that the Justice Department brought between 2002 and 2005, a grand total of two were for fabricating or falsifying voter registration applications. This qualifies as one of our smaller crime waves.
Given these figures, the Justice Department's intense focus on voter fraud is hard to explain. Yet, as Meyerson notes, from Karl Rove's perspective, "a crackdown on voter registration campaigns in minority communities made cold electoral sense." In close races, a key plank of his strategy "was to suppress black and Hispanic turnout -- a task that would become far easier if the airwaves were buzzing with news of voter-fraud indictments. It was a task that required federal prosecutors who would indict first and ask questions later."
Tim Griffin -- a "37-year-old protege" of Karl Rove and the former research director of the Republican National Committee -- has become the poster boy for the Bush administration's politicization of the office of U.S. attorney.
On Feb. 15, Griffin suddenly announced that he had "made the decision not to let my name go forward to the Senate" for approval. Instead, he will serve indefinitely as an "interim" prosecutor. By avoiding Senate approval, Griffin will also avoid having to answer questions under oath about his role in a plan to supress Florida votes -- primarily those of African-American servicemembers -- in the 2004 election. From the LA Times, 10/28/04
http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Electoral+Justice
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 3:38pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/23/2007 @ 1:52pm
HSUB, so the Repubs will continue to suppor the war in Iraq due to polls that show their base love it....but will "turn on" Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales due to some similar polling on the base on "corruption"?
So there's some NEW information that the Republican base DOES NOT KNOW or has heard about in the MSM or the talk shows, that will come out AND THEY'LL CONSIDER FACTUAL and not "liberal media attacks"....rile them up to hate Bush & Co so strongly...that it will get the Congressional GOP'ers to vote to remove them from office....
all in the next 5 months?
And that's your theory? (rolls eyes)
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 4:31pm
HSUB, so the Repubs will continue to suppor the war in Iraq due to polls that show their base love it....but will "turn on" Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales due to some similar polling on the base on "corruption"?
So there's some NEW information that the Republican base DOES NOT KNOW or has heard about in the MSM or the talk shows, that will come out AND THEY'LL CONSIDER FACTUAL and not "liberal media attacks"....rile them up to hate Bush & Co so strongly...that it will get the Congressional GOP'ers to vote to remove them from office....
Er, polling is also called 'votes' and also there are 'resignations', none of which are new information at all.
all in the next 5 months?
It's been going on since November-- where have you been?
And that's your theory? (rolls eyes)
Posted by MASK 05/23/2007 @ 4:31bm
Masky (tm)
Are you rolling your eyes in orgasmic servicing of the new con dic'tater philosophy? Playing the dumb drunk sorority girl again? Bwahahahah. You sound so willing to roll over playing the dumb logic card plus also like you have amnesia.
Er, Grassley? Almost half the repubs in congress are ok to subpoena Rove, Condi, email, DoJ employees, ... You missing all this or too busy servicing the new con dic'tater ethically challenged? Bwahahahah. Masky is too much really....
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 6:07pm
Masky-- remember this?
House committees vote new subpoenas, grant immunity
April 26, 2007
BY Laurie Kellman Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Putting their congressional control to work, Democrats approved new subpoenas Wednesday -- and a grant of immunity -- for probes ranging from the prosecutor firings and White House political activities to President Bush's justification for the war in Iraq.
Democrats said the broad array of investigations represents a revival of Congress' role after six years of little oversight of the Bush administration by Republican lawmakers.
The White House is pushing back, refusing to allow officials to testify under oath about the firings and arguing that top officials -- including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, subject of one of the subpoenas -- already have answered questions about the administration's now-discredited claim that Iraq was seeking uranium for a bomb.
"I am beginning to wonder whether the White House has any interest in the American people learning the truth about these matters," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
Congress was ramping up investigations of the White House on several fronts:
• The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 21-10 to issue a subpoena to Rice to compel her testimony on the Bush administration's pre-war claims about Saddam Hussein seeking weapons of mass destruction.
• Next door, the House Judiciary Committee voted 32-6 to grant immunity from prosecution to Monica Goodling, Gonzales' White House liaison, for testimony on why the administration fired eight federal prosecutors. The panel also unanimously approved -- but did not issue -- a subpoena to compel her to testify..
• Across Capitol Hill, Leahy's panel approved -- but did not issue -- a subpoena in the firings matter for Sara Taylor, deputy to Bush political adviser Karl Rove.
• The House oversight committee also issued subpoenas for the Republican National Committee for testimony and documents about White House e-mails on RNC accounts that are said to be missing.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 6:15pm
Poor Masky, woke up so self-satisfied, but can't remember a thing.
Masky, look on your bed-- have you figured out why there's a blond wig there yet?
Was it Frito?
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 6:43pm
HSUB....the Democratic leadership controls Congress.
The Democratic leadership a few months back said "impeachment is off the table". They also said they would push to end the war in Iraq.
I suppose your best hope is that they break BOTH promises as easily as they broke the second.
I'm going on the totally wild, out-in-the-thin-air assumption that, if they're not willing to stop an unpopular war (lotta polls show that)...that they probably won't be willing to start an impeachment (few polls show support for that).
Sorry if that's a "dumb logic card" for you...in 5 months we'll know, won't we?
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 8:23pm
"Might as well forget that argument, LP. I tried it. The Naderites will take NO responsibility nor accept that if ONLY 500 Nader voters in Florida in 2000 had dumped their "principles" (italics mine) and voted for the "lesser of two evils" (Gore)....Gore would have won Florida, becomme President, and (despite the claims of some...sorry, JOHN) NOT invaded Iraq and precipitated a failed occupation.
Posted by MASK 05/23/2007 @ 10:40am
How bizarre, to invoke the concept of "principles", by suggesting they be "dropped", to better facilatate the ignoring of others lack of "principles".
So we are to conclude that Naderites will take "NO responsibility" for thier actions... In stark comparison to what? Republicans? Democrats? Those guys are sooo accountable.
Both Nader and Gore sucked. But bush takes sucking to previously inconceivable levels.
Sadly, I have to agree with your assertion, that congress essentially just proved how useless they are. I still believe that impeachment would be the best thing to happen, for America's future, but these guys are obviously worthless.
In the end, to me, the only rational decision was to vote for anybody but the dempublicans. I feel that I wasted my vote, by voting dem., both in 2000 and 2006.
The onlything dem., left worth respecting, at this point, is the concept of Fiengold for president. Unfortunately, he is to smart, educated and consistantly correct to even warrant consideration, that Americans would vote for him... Not sexy enough... looks like no fun to have a beer with.
BTW, maybe Darla, for all her apparent foibles, has a life. Think about it.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 05/23/2007 @ 9:53pm
How does any particular number of votes, have any relevance in comparison to a bogus count?
2004 sounds like a lot of conjecture to me. But, 2000 seems plainly stolen. So how are "500 Nader voters" relevant?
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 05/23/2007 @ 9:57pm
I am always perplexed that dems think they won the election on the issue of Iraq....as important- perhaps not moreso, but as important to many (conservative) voters were Congressional spending outrages, scandels (e.g., Mark Foley), the intrusion of Congress into the Terry Schaivo affair, and more. But the reality is that the majority of Americans realize what an idiocy it is to announce a timeline for the departure of our soldiers from the Iraq arena now matter how much we want them home, and many newly elected Democrats come from consituencies whose identities and legacies are not born out of the Vietnam protest era. Finally, for people to whom the presidency is an important institution, regardless of its inhabitant at any point in time, it is dubious at best to think that Congress should impose itself as the commander in chief when it doesn't like the result of the most recent Presidential election.
Posted by ler at 05/23/2007 @ 11:54pm
Posted by MASK 05/23/2007 @ 8:23p
Face it, dems, don't have the votes to overturn the veto nor pass withdrawal language in the funding bill per repub's base are war lovers, blood thirsty-- with other people's sons and daughters that is. If the leaders don't have the votes they can't win. hsuB still has the repubs for war. Any war, any place any time, as long as it's war... so it seems.
However, the dems have the votes for investigating corruption and there's gold in them there hills... ironic that repub greed will be what stops the war, ultimately. Sad so many have to die.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 02:15am
Sorry if that's a "dumb logic card" for you...in 5 months we'll know, won't we?
Posted by MASK 05/23/2007 @ 8:23pm
Yep, it's dumb if you ignore what the repubs in congress are willing to do with the dems-- oversight of corruption and issue subpoenas. Lots of evidence to impeach is a pilin' up-- boy is it ever.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 02:20am
It is time to change the whole lot. Lets get rid of the Republicans and Democrats and start over.
Neither party cares what the people really want.
Posted by strkravnmad at 05/24/2007 @ 4:13pm
Just prior to the vote on the first Patriot Act key legislators received envelopes filled with Anthrax. The Anthrax was traced to a lab operated by the U.S. Army. The second vote was preceded by an evacuation when someone carrying bioweapons walked through the Legislature's hazmat sensors. Hours before the vote on Iraq our President sent 2 aircraft groups, an amphibious assault group, and 17,000 marines through the straits of Hormuz... a card taken from LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin playbook.
Were strong arm tactics used to influence this vote?
Posted by lda at 05/24/2007 @ 8:54pm