Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditI spent some of Wednesday with a worried mom from Idaho Falls, Idaho, whose only son is in the National Guard. Once a month he drives 200 miles to train, then he drives 200 miles back home again. (All for $200 most of which is spent on gas.) He served in Bosnia. Will he be deployed to Iraq?
"I was counting on the Democrats to stop this war," said Marianne, blue eyes blazing. So were thousands of other mothers.
It's time to turn this story around. Rove's wrong. This so-called "supplemental" isn't about supporting troops; this blank-check bill is about sacrificing them.
At the current rate of fatalities, another 200-300 US troops will have been killed by the time the Congress votes on funding again. Ten times that many Iraqis will have perished. Squandering human lives and health for Exxon and Chevron's wealth is not supporting the troops. It's sacrificing them.
By voting more money for Bush's war, the Congress will be sacrificing more lives to a President who has no plan, for a cause he can't explain, at a cost that none of us can count.
The bill your Senator and Representative are likely to vote on today is about sacrificing lives in a country whose people want us gone, where our presence is only inflaming extremists and speeding on theocracy.
Once upon a time, the President said something about bringing "democracy" to the Middle East. It's sends quite a message to the world that the people's majority in the most powerful democracy in the world doesn't give a damn about the people who voted them into office. Vote and still you die.
The only way to support the troops is to fully fund their withdrawal now.
Call your representative today: 202 224 3121.
Vote against the Sacrifice the Troops bill. Stand up for Marianne and the millions of moms -- US and Iraqi -- who were counting on the American peace and justice movement to stop this madness.
Laura Flanders is the author of Blue Grit: True Democrats Take Back Politics from the Politicians, from The Penguin Press.
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
Ms Flanders?!?!?
What happened to your post on your little tiff with Lou Dobbs over the defintion of the English word "alien"?!??
As for the supplemental, it's a done deal. If Pelosi and Reid had some any inkling that the votes wouldn't be there to get it passed, they'd still be "negotiating" with the Administration. Pelosi obviously has lost the "Blue Dog Dems"; Reid knows he'll lose Lieberman (Johnson is out) and a "Ben Nelson" or "Max Baucus" or two or three will flip on him.
They've read the polls and 10,000 phone calls STILL aren't going to change their minds.
Posted by Mask at 05/24/2007 @ 09:11am
Ahhh, never mind. I see, it's over on "Notion", my bad.
You've been BUSY today, huh?
Posted by Mask at 05/24/2007 @ 09:13am
"They've read the polls and 10,000 phone calls STILL aren't going to change their minds."
They tried twice, and the president vetoed. At some point the bully pulpit would continue to accused democrats of playing politics, not supporting the troops and causing the baby Jesus to cry. Yes, they could cut off the funding, but this would create a degree of political blowback.
You know how this works. Read up McCain on Somalia.
"You've been BUSY today, huh?"
You too. Bit of a liberal day job?
Posted by Draconis at 05/24/2007 @ 09:27am
Yes, they could cut off the funding, but this would create a degree of political blowback. ---Posted by DRACONIS 05/24/2007 @ 09:27am
Wait a minute, DRAC...little more clarification of that.
If they cut off funding, what would happen? Technically, (and somebody can correct me) they would say "Okay, Dubya. As of March 1, 2008, the funds to the operations in Iraq end. Start pulling the troops back to Kurdistan and Kuwait. There will be FULL FUNDING for the withdrawal operations, but nothing else. If you don't, as of that date, the Defense Department will legally have no way of continueing their operations and will violate the law if they spend money on fuel, supplies, etc. to stay there."
Bush can veto THAT too, but if it's the ONLY bill the Congress sends for supplemental funding, the money runs out THIS June and (again, technically), the Joint Chiefs will then have to direct their units to begin a pull-out due to lack of funds for continueing operations.
Now, this MIGHT (I'll say 70%) be a political disaster for the Democratic Party who now holds the majority in the US Congress. Yes, Bush and Cheney and Limbaugh and Fox News can spin it (easily, I grant) as "taking the food and bullets away from our brave guys and gals".
But you know what? I don't give a rat's ass about the Democratic Party's fortunes. I CARE about US troops dying in a stupid and failing war, and BILLIONS being spent to continue it.
Why is it that the "risk" to the Democratic Party in Congress....is more important than people's lives or even bankrupting the country?
Posted by Mask at 05/24/2007 @ 09:56am
Couldn't agree more with MASK here.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/24/2007 @ 10:08am
Why is it that the "risk" to the Democratic Party in Congress....is more important than people's lives or even bankrupting the country?
Posted by MASK 05/24/2007 @ 09:56am | ignore this person
Obviously a rhetorical question. We all know the answer to that. Self interest of our politicians trumps the interest of the people every time.
Be interesting to see how the "compromise" vote plays out today. We be watchin.
Posted by OneVote at 05/24/2007 @ 10:21am
We have soldiers in Iraq?
Posted by maine098 at 05/24/2007 @ 10:30am
Why is it that the "risk" to the Democratic Party in Congress....is more important than people's lives or even bankrupting the country?
Posted by MASK
Duh! The government is not of, by, or for the people. Both parties are beholden to wealthy, powerful interests. It's nothing more than a game, a sham; one party with two wings in opposition, playing one side against the other, always jocking for position.
But wait a minute. Isn't it you, box of rocks, that is always lamenting my refusal to vote when I'm faced with a choice of only candidate a and candidate b?
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/24/2007 @ 10:47am
FLANDERS: Squandering human lives and health for Exxon and Chevron's wealth is not supporting the troops.
Ms. Flanders just slandered me, an Exxon wealthholder for 2 decades! Maybe she is right! I just wonder if she could DOCUMENT numerically, how exactly Exxon/my wealth has been enhanced? While she is at it, perhaps she could also tell us how Exxon/me benefitted from the glorious Oil for Food program?
Ms. Flanders, you don't have much upstairs, do you?
Posted by Happy at 05/24/2007 @ 10:52am
I am shocked that the dems vacillated. I've never seen such a thing.
time for third parties to overthrow the corporate duolpoly.
I can dream.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2007 @ 10:54am
I agree with Laura...the Republicans don't give a damn about the troops. They are largely from low income families who are being used in the imperialistic conquest as one might use logs on a fire...if the fire starts to go out, put some more.
Posted by kevin99999 at 05/24/2007 @ 10:55am
If LUVSDESPOTS returns:
your post yesterday was filled with ancient history, most of which proved out to be WRONG. Whetehr Clinton/ Reid/Clinton agreed with PNAC or not makes no difference to me. They, and you, and Chip and Happy, are wrong. Period. You quickly bypass the US constitution and say the Chimpy can do whatever he damn well pleases regardless of international and US law.
He did do it, and look where we are. a god awful mess with 750,000 Iraqis dead, a failed state that harbors terrorists. Splendid job.
and how in the heck did you imagine that "from the start this war was micromanaged from congress"? That is a crock of shit. Chimpy and Rummy got to do EVERYTHING they wanted from day one. Nobody with any power questioned a damn thing, they just cut the check.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2007 @ 11:00am
HAPPY:
Day to Day, May 8, 2007 · Attorneys for oil giant Chevron are on the verge of a settlement with federal prosecutors after admiting the company gave kickbacks to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Saddam made almost $2 billion in back-door deals with various companies in the United Nation's Oil-for-Food program. Janet Babin of Marketplace talks to Alex Cohen about Chevron's activities with Iraq.
Record profits, record high prices. You claim to be a smart feller, figure it out.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2007 @ 11:04am
Take a guess who sat on the Chevron board during this time period, smart feller.
Hint: there is an oil tanker named after this individual.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2007 @ 11:05am
From wiki:
The Duelfer report, released on 30 September 2004, described in a key finding the impact of the Oil-for-Food Programme on Saddam's regime: • The introduction of the Oil-For-Food Programme (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.[vol. I, p.1] The final official version of the report cites only France, Russia and Canada (countries who were also strongly anti-war) as violators who paid kickbacks while at the same time, by order of attorneys at CIA, specifically censoring out companies from the US originally included by Duelfer. [13]
However, the full version of the report, before the U.S. names were removed, was sent to congressional committees and some of it made publicly available. The U.S. companies implicated include Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp. and El Paso Corp.
sorry, Happy, reality sucks sometimes.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2007 @ 11:12am
Just think Happy, you helped support Saddam Husseun!!! Not just by voting for Reagan either, you invested in companies that did business with Saddam. Did you also have Halliburton stock then? How about now? They STILL do business with Iran. I assume you love the communists over in China too.
with patriots like you, who needs Usama? But, as long as your making money, who cares where it comes from, right?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2007 @ 11:16am
Anybody listening to this idiot (Georgie Jr) right now? He continues to refer to Iraq as a "fledgling democracy," a "sovereign" nation. It's difficult to believe that there are still people swallowing that kind of garbage.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/24/2007 @ 11:23am
with patriots like you, who needs Usama? But, as long as your making money, who cares where it comes from, right?
Posted by CRABWALK 05/24/2007 @ 11:16am | ignore this person
What could be more patriotic than the love of lucre and money?
Reminds me of the scene in the Mike Moore film Divided State where Hannity at a speaking engagement in Utah welcomes a liberal from the audience to come live next door to him and other wealthy war mongering Repubs.....conditioned by the qualification "if you can afford it."
Wealth is the measure of a man....don't forget. Doesn't matter if that wealth is from ill-gotten gains or not. Remember Reagan's ties to the Chicago and LA mob? He is the Republican heroe?!?
Pathetic.
Posted by OneVote at 05/24/2007 @ 11:32am
Er, if you think about the reasons that were originally given by the hsuB/heney/ove admin to go into Iraq, WMD, stockpiles of chemicals/biological agents, mushroom clouds, etc. Yet, they had no trouble sending in our troops with an estimated death rate for our troops in the 10's of thousands if Saddam had actually had them to use. Thus either they are that evil that they'd let 10's of thousands of our troops die when we could've kept the inspectors there looking for the WMD stock piles-- OR, they knew the whole time there wasn't any WMD of any kind and just wanted the oil no matter what happened to our troops in the long run which had disaster written all over it for decades, a whole other kind of evil... So is anyone really that surprised hsuB's using our troops as bate to blackmail the congress?
But look at hsuB's last 3 polls-- all down by 3-4% in approval, up in disapprova; in just 2-3 weeksl And these polls are Fox, Diago and Gallup, none considered very liberal. The citizenry get it.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 11:42am
ONE: thanks for the Word Of The Day: Lucre.
I haven't seen/heard that term in a long time.
Maybe they should change the moniker to the "L" OP.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2007 @ 11:42am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/24/2007 @ 11:23am
Chimpy lives in a dream world.
Platitudes, jingoes, revisionist history.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2007 @ 11:46am
Watching the Dems these days can get pretty frustrating. They can't commit on serious cuts in war funding or real troop withdrawal because they think their majorities in reddish states are too thin, majorities won in Republican districts while the planets aligned. They keep holding out for an even bigger majority in the next election cycle. It reminds me of poor Americans continuing to vote Republican because some day they too will be millionaires and want the tax breaks. Wake up Democrats- you will never rule unabated again. Thanks to your legislative style- you will always be stuck 47%-53%. Call the King's bluff and walk with honor. Worst-case scenario, you get voted out of office by people who voted for you as a protest- not because they liked you. In the end- their inaction will do more to hurt them with progressives than help them with undecideds.
Posted by phillymark at 05/24/2007 @ 11:53am
I love how chimpy states the obvious like it's some new revelation. I think I am beginning to "get" him. Make obvious pronouncements as if they were newfound epoch shattering realizations. state revisionist history as if it were real.
"There's other things we need to do, as well. We need to worry about the cost of health care." -- Ardmore, Pennsylvania, Mar. 15, 2004
"You'll find that employees walk a little better down the halls of your companies when you've encouraged them to help a neighbor in need." Dec. 10, 2002
"And I don't need to tell that to the people of this room, but there is a -- some in our country -- uh, believe in the, what I call the soft bigotry of low expectations. They don't believe in the bigotry, but because there's low expectations, there is a soft bigotry." -- Dubya seems to save some of his most inept moments for talking about education, White House, Sep. 4, 2002
Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2007 @ 11:56am
" don't think there's a Democrat idea, I don't think it's a Republican idea, I think these are just ideas that need to be on the table. I think I'm the first President ever to have stood up and said, bring all your ideas forward." Chimpy McFlightsuit
-- Delusions of grandeur, anyone? Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Mar. 30, 2005
Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2007 @ 12:00pm
It's amazing how so many Americans are shocked to discover that politicians play politics, even with peoples lives, considering they have done that so many times in our history.Victory in Iraq is no longer the issue with Bush,the GOP,or the Democrats.The issue is who gets the blame for the loss.Bush came up with a plan to stick extra police in a high crime area in order to lower the violence rate by the time he leaves office so he can lie and claim he was winning and the GOP is desperately trying to say that the Democrats now own the war,too since they don't expect victory and don't want the blame by themselves.The democrats are looking to 2008 and are doing what they can to not own the war.Their attitude is-O.k. it's your war,here is your money now go fight your war.It's just politics as usual and it isn't going to change because we will continue to go along with the lesser of two evils choice during elections.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/24/2007 @ 12:05pm
While she is at it, perhaps she could also tell us how Exxon/me benefitted from the glorious Oil for Food program?
Ms. Flanders, you don't have much upstairs, do you?
Posted by HAPPY 05/24/2007 @ 10:52am
An apology is in order?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2007 @ 12:06pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/oedipus-wrecks_b_49127.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 12:09pm
According to a story in BBC online, EXXON/MOBIL, CHEVRON and VALERO were the 3 largest purchasers of oil from Saddam during the sanction period.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2007 @ 12:10pm
It is really hard for me to take the Nation Magazine and Laura Flanders seriously when they bleat about Democrats caving in. She writes a book investing hopes in the "progressive" transformation of the DP as if we haven't already seen Harry Truman and LBJ's imperialist wars. The DP was a reactionary rathole back in the 1860s when it supported the KKK in the South. Even back then, the Nation Magazine backed the DP's efforts to end radical reconstruction. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
"The Nation Magazine's Tainted Liberalism":
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/american_left/tainted_nation.htm
Posted by lnp3 at 05/24/2007 @ 12:12pm
"The administration I'll bring is a group of men and women who are focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house."- Jan 15, 2000.
Oh well, it's not like his supporters hold him to his words.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2007 @ 12:12pm
Maybe they should change the moniker to the "L" OP.
Posted by CRABWALK 05/24/2007 @ 11:42am | ignore this person
Or maybe G(Greed)OP.....how appropriate for today.
Posted by OneVote at 05/24/2007 @ 12:18pm
This is a stupid turn around and betrayal by the Democratic party of its BASE. They not only lose credablity for this abrupt turning around and running that it makes the party look like it is led by the same incompetant idiots that led the country to war in the first place.
I expect a change in leadership, Pelosi is not up to the task, and Ried is a sniveling coward. I would not be surprised that Leiberman little threat to switch party to swing the Senate to the Republican majority did not also play into this. What a bunch of clowns the Democratic leadership has proven to be, and IN RECORD TIME TOO!
Posted by oc2001 at 05/24/2007 @ 12:26pm
Ms. Flander is absolutely correct. There is ample historical eidence that the government does not give a damn about human lives, including our own. It is using soldiers, most of whom come from poor economic class, as logs on fire in pursuit of imperialistic conquest.
The comment by "HAPPY 05/24/2007" is microcasm of the driving force behind use of military force in search for profits so people like "Happy" could real happy...regardless if the whole world burns. Who is paying the bill for use of military in search and expansion for profits...we are. What a wonderful setup.
Posted by kevin99999 at 05/24/2007 @ 12:28pm
The DP was a reactionary rathole back in the 1860s when it supported the KKK in the South.
True. And it was this element of the party that switched over to the Repubs in the '80's. It is this same element that carries the Repub party.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/24/2007 @ 12:34pm
But wait a minute. Isn't it you, box of rocks, that is always lamenting my refusal to vote when I'm faced with a choice of only candidate a and candidate b?
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/24/2007 @ 10:47am
Apples and oranges, Empty Spence, to quote a noted deep thinker.
The "lesser of two evils" is stil LESS evil than the other evil. True, the Dems have failed here. But if you're pro-choice, and it comes down to "not legitimizing the system" and allowing a "pro-life" Republican beat a Democrat, who will nominate pro-choice judges and Justices....you go vote.
If you're pro-gay rights, and YOUR not voting let's the Religious Right keep a percent of our population as second-class citizens, you hold your self-righteous nose and vote.
Or you COMPLETELY throw in the towel and hope that NEXT time the Republicans hold power it will be "worse before it gets better" and hope that Dennis Kucinich becomes the Presidential nominee....and die a disappointed old radical in 50-70 years who never saw his dream come to fruition.
Posted by Mask at 05/24/2007 @ 12:49pm
I'd much rather be a disappointed old radical than a tool.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/24/2007 @ 12:53pm
Mask-There aren't any anti choice candidates leading in the polls for the GOP.We've had 4 GOP presidents since Roe v Wade and abortion is still legal and gays continue to be more accepted and get more rights despite the GOP presidents or GOP control of congress when that has been the case.People who accept the lesser of two evils thing cause this problem and it will continue for as long as you accept it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/24/2007 @ 12:55pm
The corporate Dem strategy is obviously something you endorse. A DLCer, a true liberal. You have no problem making money off a corrupt, exploitive system. You want the freedoms that the religious right will not allow, though. And you want people like me to play along, vote Dem. No. I'll not be a part of that; I will not support your kind with voting for a corporate sponsored Dem.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/24/2007 @ 12:59pm
I wonder if the real Republican or at least Bush/Rove/Cheney agenda is to destroy the U.S. government. Everything they have done has undermined the federal government. Nobody trusts what government officials say now that these guys have been caught lying so frequently. They have managed to pretty much bankrupt the government with this stupid damn war, while also damaging the volunteer military. Sounds like what these neoconservatives really want is to pretty much destroy or severely weaken the federal government. This of course would lead to the privatizing of the government. Don't believe that, just look at how they are using Blackwater in place of the military. What a way to get rich and screw up the government at the same time. If this is true, these guys are basically committing treason. I just wonder how many people on the democrat side of the isle are on the same page as the republicans.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/24/2007 @ 12:59pm
Nobody-
Your theory must have been in the hearts of the 100,000 plus Nader voters in Florida 2000. Sometimes there's a little evil and a whole lotta evil.
Posted by phillymark at 05/24/2007 @ 1:56pm
PhillyMark-In 2000 no American had a clue as to how evil Bush is.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/24/2007 @ 2:01pm
CRAB, I'm impressed with your dedication to the War for Oil `conspiracy'!
One thing you failed to take into Inconvenient Account is that I clearly stated that I've owned Exxon for almost 20 years....before the Gulf War and long before the smelly OFF! And yes, I have made several killings along the way, you know, buy-low and sell-high kinda of high finance.
Also, go take a look at Exxon's (XOM) stock chart and tell me, how has Exxon benefitted more than some oil companies that have never operated in Iraq or even participated in the LEGAL (I mean, your favorite institution, the UN set it up, right?) OFF program? Try Apache (APA), Conoco (COP), Swift Energy (SFY)......
Cynical but a realist, Im well aware that kickbacks and bribes are ordinary part of international business (and American businesses are a shadow of what foreign multi-nationals engage in). What else is new? That Dems take corp. contributions in (silent) quid pro quo?
Oh, something else, I suppose Iraq brought the wrath of God in the form of Katrina and Rita to destroy billions of worth of oil infrastructure right here in my neck of the ponds. Even more, Rove orchestrated the storms and directed BP to spring a leak in Alaska, goad Nigerian natives to attack oil installations and force China to consume ever more amount of crude oil while also burning up a storm of high-sulphur coal....just to feed the conspiracy nutcases!
Posted by Happy at 05/24/2007 @ 2:07pm
They ignored the FRAT PLEDGING, ENTITLED, BIRD FLIPPING, DRUG TAKING, DWI, AWOL, BLOWING UP FROG MEANESS, FAILED BUSINESSES, WEAK GOVERNORSHIP, LOUSY SPEAKING, DIRTY SMEAR CAMPAIGNING, C STUDENT, etc. Now we can add another 50 lines of more crap the hsuB pres has done.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 2:16pm
I'd much rather be a disappointed old radical than a tool.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/24/2007 @ 12:53pm
Ding! Your wish is granted!
Posted by Mask at 05/24/2007 @ 2:16pm
PhillyMark-In 2000 no American had a clue as to how evil Bush is.
Posted by I'M NOBODY
George Bush in 2000 was and still is a Fundamentalist "Christian" who supported death sentences for retarded teenagers. And he was proud of it. That's all I needed. Sorry you were so blind.
Posted by phillymark at 05/24/2007 @ 2:17pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 05/24/2007 @ 12:55pm
Well, first, not to dispute your facts...well, yes....to dispute your "facts"...
If Al Gore had been elected in 2000, would John Roberts and Sam Alito or anybody LIKE them have been put on the US Supreme Court? and would there have been an ANTI-choice ruling on a decision similar to "Gonzales v Carhart"?
If you answer "yes, nothing would have changed"...you're an idiot, but sticking to your statement as "factual".
If you answer "No, obviously, we wouldn't have a 5-4 anti-choice Surpreme Court" and an upheld "Partial Birth Abortion Ban"....but it means your previous post was NOT factual.
Posted by Mask at 05/24/2007 @ 2:21pm
Ding! Your wish is granted!
Posted by MASK
That's right. I am no tool.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/24/2007 @ 2:35pm
That's right. I am no tool.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/24/2007 @ 2:35pm
No...you'd have to change the "t" to an "f" for that to fit.
hehe
Posted by Mask at 05/24/2007 @ 2:47pm
Mask-The GOP needs the abortion issue and needs it to be legal in order to get out the one issue voters so their justices won't make it illegal.They only made the abortion procedure that most Americans are against illegal. Yes,presidents do appoint supreme court justices and that is important,but having that be the only criteria for voting isn't what Democracy is supposed to be about.Americans have been apathetically accepting whatever for too long now and nothing will change as long as we just accept whatever choices we are given and allow politicians to count on the lesser of two evils thing.The solution is an election where not one person votes,but that will never happen.The solution isn't just apathetically accepting whoever because they appoint supreme court justices.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/24/2007 @ 2:47pm
I'd much rather be a fool than a tool.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/24/2007 @ 3:23pm
The solution is an election where not one person votes,but that will never happen.The solution isn't just apathetically accepting whoever because they appoint supreme court justices.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 05/24/2007 @ 2:47pm
Okay, IM, I'll bite....you proposed a solution that won't work, and a solution that isn't acceptable.
Now, given you've been "involved" since the 60s when you guys forced Nixon to end the Vietnam War...surely, you have SOME solution to the problem and will rapidly implement it along with all the old SDS guys...right?
Posted by Mask at 05/24/2007 @ 3:29pm
I'd much rather be a fool than a tool.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/24/2007 @ 3:23pm
We're being generous this month, Empty...you can be BOTH!
Posted by Mask at 05/24/2007 @ 3:30pm
Mask-This is one of those problems for which there is no solution other than the one I mentioned.Some problems are built into the system like the need for money and the need to sell your soul to the people with the money.Most Americans will never seriously question this,either. Conservatives will always accept the system and vote for whoever because they can't not accept the system or whoever because that is who they are and the other side knows this and accepts whoever because they feel that they have no choice. I do vote and will vote for my congressperson since they do represent me.I'd vote for any Democratic nominee,but Hillary.Trying to solve this problem is just pissing in the wind.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/24/2007 @ 3:52pm
We're being generous this month, Empty...you can be BOTH!
Posted by MASK 05/24/2007 @ 3:30pm
I hope everybody gets to see this GEM! It is truly funny....on an otherwise dismal $$$ day! Thanks!
Posted by Happy at 05/24/2007 @ 4:04pm
Happy, You say you have owned Exxon for 20 years?! You are the majority stock holder of Exxon? Holy crap, we should be honored to listen to such a tyrant as yourself!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/24/2007 @ 4:54pm
You are the majority stock holder of Exxon? Holy crap, we should be honored to listen to such a tyrant as yourself!
Posted by WOLFGANG1 05/24/2007 @ 4:54pm
I think you are a non-stock investor or certainly a novice! Heard of buy-low and sell-high? I do that regularly (with most of my bread-and-butter stocks)....though I always maintain some minimal positions in core stocks like Exxon!
Believe it or not, this "tyrant" actually likes to pay capital gains tax to support all my subjects! Got to harvest your gains.....otherwise, they `rot' in the field just about everytime! LOL!
Pay closer atention, don't be jealous, and you might learn a thing or two about the "HAPPY Path to Wealth"....Free!
Posted by Happy at 05/24/2007 @ 6:02pm
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
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
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
Calculations 04/05
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/24/2007 @ 6:43pm
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
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 05/24/2007 @ 6:44pm
I'M NOBODY...do you actually READ what you write?!??!?
"Conservatives will always accept the system and vote for whoever because they can't not accept the system" ....(followed by)...."I'd vote for any Democratic nominee,but Hillary.Trying to solve this problem is just pissing in the wind."----Posted by I'M NOBODY 05/24/2007 @ 3:52pm |
So as long as it's not Hillary, you'll "accept the system and vote for whoever" and then "it's a pissing in the wind" effort to do so.
In the space of three phrases you came out as "accepting the system is stupid"..."in a non-Hillary race, you'll accept the system"...and then "it's hopeless again".
If it's hopeless why vote for the "non-Hillary" candidate...and why do you expect your representative to do any better? Sounds like there's atleast one "progressive" who (along with the conservatives) who "can't not accept the system"!
Posted by Mask at 05/24/2007 @ 10:04pm
Happy, you owned stock in companies that did business with Saddam. Then you brush it aside with some unfunny comments. You helped keep Saddam in power. You added to his death piles. You are part of the reason the reason 750,000 Iraqis are dead. Is that what makes you happy?
I am beginning to get you too. I think you are fine with Nigeria's oil production status quo too. And The House Saud.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2007 @ 11:05pm
Happy, you owned stock in companies that did business with Saddam. ...
Posted by CRABWALK 05/24/2007 @ 11:05pm
That's a fair statement and I have no problem w/it! I do own several mutual funds, including a couple of internaitonal ones, along with multiple dozens of individual stocks.
However, before one casts stones, what about this: Those that receive direct Gov't benefits (Social Security, MediCare, Pensions, etc.....), aren't they benefiting from the largest corp-like entity that "did business with Saddam"? You are surely receiving SSI, heh?
Another thing, given your holier-than-thou attitude, you must NOT be a mutual fund holder, right?
Posted by Happy at 05/24/2007 @ 11:52pm
Pogo was right, you is the enemy, Happy.
Who needs Usama when we have home grown sponsors of terrorists right here taking pride in their work.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/25/2007 @ 07:24am
However, before one casts stones, what about this: Those that receive direct Gov't benefits (Social Security, MediCare, Pensions, etc.....), aren't they benefiting from the largest corp-like entity that "did business with Saddam"? You are surely receiving SSI, heh?
Another thing, given your holier-than-thou attitude, you must NOT be a mutual fund holder, right?
Posted by HAPPY
That's what you call rationalizing.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/25/2007 @ 11:09am
Who needs Usama when we have home grown sponsors of terrorists right here taking pride in their work.
Posted by CRABWALK 05/25/2007 @ 07:24am
Are YOU running away from my `challenging' questions? Did I run away from my unabashed and unapologetic capitalist ways? The picture I have now of you is a retired, semi-literate former social worker who is wholly dependent (and sucking on every teats) on our GOV'T!
That's OK, you are still a step above Empty since he's sucking on his employers' generosity while producing little work!
Posted by Happy at 05/25/2007 @ 11:52am
CRAB,
Blooper moment....
Strike references to "social worker" but change it to "old Northerner"!
Posted by Happy at 05/25/2007 @ 11:55am
And what does Happy produce? He speculates on the work of others.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/25/2007 @ 12:34pm
Mask-Will you ever grow up and get a life?Please,do not continue to make up things that I or others say.What I said was quite clear and I have no interest in your 12 year old game.I know you think that these boards are all you have,but there really is a wonderful world out there and even you can enjoy it if you try.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/25/2007 @ 3:18pm
I know you think that these boards are all you have,but there really is a wonderful world out there and even you can enjoy it if you try.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 05/25/2007 @ 3:18pm
Gee, I'M, if you're so utterly destroying me, my arguments, and credibility....not sure why it's so important for you that I....leave?!?!??
And I didn't "make up things" that you said...I quoted you.
If you have some OTHER "translation" for ...
"Conservatives will always accept the system and vote for whoever because they can't not accept the system" ....(followed by)...."I'd vote for any Democratic nominee,but Hillary.Trying to solve this problem is just pissing in the wind."----Posted by I'M NOBODY 05/24/2007 @
Please explain it to us. The "conservatives always accept the system and vote for whoever because they can't not accept the system"....but you will "vote for any Democratic nominee,but Hillary"....
so will any "non-Hillary" candidate change the system, since you (unlike those stupid cons) won't "accept the system and vote for whoever because YOU can't NOT accept the system"....
why no, they won't (Obama, Edwards, et al), because as you FURTHER state "Trying to solve this problem is just pissing in the wind."
So, the stupid cons accept the system and vote for whoever. YOU will accept any non-Hillary candidate (whoever) and vote and accept the system, because to solve the problem is just pissing in the wind.
I think I know NOW why you won't me to leave this blog ASAP....so that you can spout off your inane and CONTRADICTORY "wisdom" and not be called on it. Another stereotypical quality of "The Greatest-In-Their-Own-Minds Generation"...the inability to accept criticism or refutation.
Must have something to do with being raised on Dr. Spock's advice....hehe
Posted by Mask at 05/25/2007 @ 4:27pm