Kucinich Sounds the Alarm

posted by John Nichols on 08/16/2007 @ 12:53am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (175)

Subscribe Now

Dennis Kucinich may not be a front runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

But the congressman from Cleveland has succeeded in distinguishing himself from the other contenders when it comes to speaking those truths that are self-evident.

And in an era of mass delusion and denial on the party of leaders in both major political parties, stating the obvious can be a radical act.

Such is the case with Kucinich's appropriate answer to the latest move by the Bush-Cheney administration to ramp up hostilities with Iran. That move -- the unprecedented attempt to label Iran's 125,000-strong Republican Guard as a "specially designated global terrorist" group -- is, as the congressman says "nothing more than an attempt to deceive Americans into yet another war -- this time with Iran."

No one who has paid even the slightest attention to the Bush-Cheney administration's approach to Middle East affairs can doubt that Kucinich is right. Yet, his is a lonely voice of clarity amid the din of Democratic obfuscation that aids and abets this White House's worst instincts.

"The belligerent Bush Administration is using this pending designation to convince the American public into accepting that a war with Iran is inevitable," argues Kucinich.

"This designation will set the stage for more chaos in the region because it undercuts all of our diplomatic efforts," he adds. explaining that, "This new label provides further evidence for Iran's leaders that there is no point to engage in diplomatic talks with the United States if our actions point directly to regime change."

Delivering the response that should be coming from New York Senator Hillary Clinton, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and especially from Delaware Senator Joe Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he isn't campaigning for president, Kucinich argued that, "Our nation is better served by demanding sensible and responsible diplomatic foreign policy initiatives from the Bush Administration."

Kucinich, who has proposed impeaching Vice President Cheney for continually prodding the country toward an unnecessary war with Iran, may not get the political credit he deserves for calling out this administration. But history will recognize him as the man who sounded the alarm when the Bush administration moved America closer to the brink of disaster.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] 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.'"

Comments (175)

Reason number two for impeachment, I agree.

Posted by V at 08/16/2007 @ 12:14am
All I have to say is, if people believe in what Kucinich is saying but support Clinton or Obama because they are 'electable' then these people are copping out. Dennis is the only one speaking truth to power and has be doing so consistently. If you believe, then stand up.

Posted by magerd at 08/16/2007 @ 12:30am
It was the Left, after the onset of the Iraq War, that kept harping on Bush not dealing with Iran--which the Left either believed to be more dangerous or was just trying to discredit the Iraq War.

We stepped into the background and let Europe negotiated for 3+ years....Result? Hezbollah provokes a war w/Israel....Iran even closer to nuclear capable.....Iran complicity in killing Iraqis and Americans.....Iran involvement in Gaza.......Israel may take Iran at its word to wipe it off the map and decide to go solo & do something about it.....

More than likely, Iran & Pakistan will both be the next POTUS's hot potatos!

Posted by Happy at 08/16/2007 @ 01:16am
Posted by HAPPY 08/16/2007 @ 01:16am

i don't see how the prospect of more innocent people dying can make you happy.

the lebanese had been occupied for 20 odd years by the israelis, (i imagine for the litani river--remember water is the next oil) and the israelis continue to make incursions into lebanese territory. if canada occupied the u.s., i imagine you would become a terrorist, too.

if iran is building a nuke, it's for defense. they'd finally have the neocon lunatics off their back.

iran, i'm sure is not asleep in iraq. however, hasn't the u.s. been responsible for most of the carnage? just listen to cheney '94. it would be a quagmire.

poor gazans. they throw out the corrupt bums (fatah) from office in a u.s. sponsored election and now have to pay the price of democracy. if the iranians are helping them eat and survive, god bless them.

the world isn't us and them. there are real people on the end of all of this. people in iran or syria or whatever other place is in the u.s.'s gunsights are just people. they want to work, have dinner, and watch t.v. with their family. the don't give a f@%k about the u.s.. why can't we just leave them alone (oh yeah, they've got our oil)?

why don't we declare everybody a terrorist? at this rate we're going to blow each other up any ways.

Posted by MAGERD 08/16/2007 @ 12:30am

If you believe, then stand up and vote for kucinich.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/16/2007 @ 02:00am
More than likely, Iran & Pakistan will both be the next POTUS's hot potato(e)s!

Posted by HAPPY 08/16/2007 @ 01:16am

but why should they be? neither country has ever attacked the u.s., nor has any method of doing so.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/16/2007 @ 02:13am
Congressman Kucinich has my heartfelt thanks. And if Senator Obama fails to speak out against these transparent tactics, I will throw my support to the Congressman from my original home state.

I fear it may take all of us, shouting at the top of our lungs, to hold back the U.S. military-industrial complex when it has such an itchy trigger finger. We have had many disappointments, especially from the 110th Congress, but we can't afford to lose this one.

War with Iran would end all hope of restoring sanity, both in the Mid-East and here at home. This is serious stuff, folks. I vow to do everything that is sane and reasonable to prevent this war, and I implore you to do the same.

Posted by Donald Weed at 08/16/2007 @ 04:24am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/16/2007 @ 02:00am |

I don't and would never vote for a Kucinich...

Iran is a huge problem, and the left will placate them until it is too late...I, for one, believe what Iran says it wants and will do..starting with Israel..

Iran needs nukes for defense? Nukes are a defensive weapon? Iran needs to defend itself against whom? Iraq? Israel? Israel never said Iran needs to be wiped off the map..

The looney left will always leave us a position for another war to finish by allowing someone else to start one THEY can't finish.. Frosty, you have become frozen..in between the ears... this is a recipe for war...and this is a recipe for allowing Iran to fire the first shots..

As Happy said, Iran was all the left screamed about since the begining..and now they make hostile moves in Iraq, Afganistan, and threaten Israel and you want to make nice with them?

Why? They have told your UN and EU to get screwed for years..

Happy is correct.

Posted by john maasch at 08/16/2007 @ 06:10am
Holy War?

Right-all-the-time religious birds of a different feather, have flocked together as hawks to snatch a dove in midair. They started by proclaiming the War on Terror, a Holy War.

It's hard to know who originated this Holy War rendition of Mein Kampf, but the Military Industrial Complex, Israel and various other political Reality Makers come to mind.

It sometimes seems that Jews have learned the Holocaust lesson in reverse by adopting an ideology meant to obliterate them. Forget an eye for and eye, now it's strike first and many times. But it's getting really hard to see that as National Defense.

Did the virus spread from D.C. to Israel, or vice versa?

It's hard to know.

Our reality making Big brother Media has bottled rat excrement, labeled it BABY FOOD, and sold it worldwide.

Posted by rabblerowzer at 08/16/2007 @ 07:08am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/16/2007 @ 06:10am

There is no magic quota when repeating the same tired schtick at which point the BS turns into gold.

I think that Einstein was being euphemistically kind when he defined insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting an eventual different outcome.

Everything is not a nail John.

Posted by canaar at 08/16/2007 @ 07:58am
Do you remember Khobar Towers?

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/16/2007 @ 07:05am

Do you remember the 1953 coup that ousted a democratically elected government in Iran in favor of the dynastic Pahlavi family?

Guess what that one was about - you got it, big boy. Oil.

Do you remember what happened on July 3, 1988?

A missle launched by the USS VINCENNES took out Iran Air 655, killing 290 people. VINCENNES was operating in the territorial waters of Iran at the time.

The point here is that there is plenty of shame on both sides, and that rather than finding reasons to be angry with each other, we should be finding reasons not to escalate.

I have said this before on these boards - Shrub is extremely dangerous right now. His mentality is such that he thinks that he can still pull the failed mess of his presidency out of the fire by hitting the dinger in the 9th, connecting on the Hail, Mary and swishing a 3 pointer at the buzzer all rolled into one. In my estimation, that means only one thing: going after Iran. Too bad that we have a cheerleader instead of a jock in the driver's seat.

Darth Cheney understands this about Chimpy and will play him like a fiddle. This combination of personalities - already proven to be a disaster of pandemic proportions - is by no means a lame duck and cannot be regarded as such.

Posted by skeletonman at 08/16/2007 @ 08:05am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/16/2007 @ 06:10am

Delusional.

Reason number One the US will not go to war with Iran: Chimpy broke our military Starting next year the US military is going to have a hard time fielding forces in the 2 countries Chimpy has failed to win in .

The point here is that there is plenty of shame on both sides, and that rather than finding reasons to be angry with each other, we should be finding reasons not to escalate.

I would think our good Christian friends would be the ones to offer up this statement. But alas, they are the ones calling for more death to make them feel safe.

Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2007 @ 08:34am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/16/2007 @ 06:31am

Reverend, you seem to ignore the main reason the hardliners are able to hold power in Iran, The US military camped on 2 of Irans borders. I wonder how scared shitless you would be if the tables were turned.

Walk a few feet in someone else's shoes before you sign a death warrant for thousands.

Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2007 @ 08:37am
Iran needs nukes for defense? Nukes are a defensive weapon? Iran needs to defend itself against whom?MAASCH

Yes, Jon, remember the Cold War?

As far as defense, see above post and the carrier group in the Persian Gulf along with statements by ChimpCO that "all options are on the table".

This is the result of American interference in sovereign nations come home to roost. Don't make up fantasies about this being "the lefts" fault. "The left" never supported The Shah, never wanted to occupy Irans neighbor throwing it into a chaotic civil war, never called Iran part of the "axis of Evil" while they were actually working with us after 9/11.

Look in the mirror and you will see who they want to defend against.

Are your kids signed up?

Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2007 @ 08:41am
BTW, I think Achminijaed is a world class nutjob and the mullahs are fanatics.

Just don't think the rest of the citizens should pay the price or your fears.

Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2007 @ 08:49am
"Dennis Kucinich may not be a front runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination."

Then so what? Really. Rep. Kucinich may be a good guy, maybe even a correct guy on some things. But so what?

He went through this in 2004, stuck it out in the primaries longer than most "no chance'ers" did, and in the end Kerry got the nomination and didn't run on a "Dennis-inspired" platform.

He heartens the base, creates dreams of "What IF" and "Wouldn't it be nice", but in the end Hillary, Obama, even Edwards aren't going to pay much mind to Dennis or his issues.

So fine, Mr Nichols, give Rep. Kucinich his "place in history", maybe he deserves it. But as for CURRENT importance...it isn't there.

If he wins a primary, or even comes in SECOND...then you've got something. Until then....sorry, but no.

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 08:52am
Keep in mind, the same people that told us Saddam had wmd's, helped fly planes into the WTC, said the war in Iraq would be a cakewalk... are now telling us Iran and Al Qaeda are the main problems in Iraq. Contrary to evidence on the ground.

Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2007 @ 08:53am
Iran needs nukes for defense? Nukes are a defensive weapon? Iran needs to defend itself against whom?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/16/2007 @ 06:10am

firstly, nobody needs nuclear weapons. but yes, nukes are a defensive weapon. if i've got nukes, you won't attack. who is iran afraid of? well the u.s.--remember the 1953 coup? i think they can hear cheney, too.

if you don't want your economy to crumble (if humanitarian reasoning doesn't work for you, i'll try appealing to your sense of selfishness) with oil prices passing $200 a barrel (imagine--canada, mexico and venezuela would have you by the huevos (unless of course, we too, have wmds)), iran better be left alone. the situation in iraq is volatile enough to ignite a regional war that would destroy the world economy.

plus, how would you pay for this new war? the chinese won't lend it to you. oh, i know. it will pay for itself with iranian oil revenue.

why does the u.s. need nuclear weapons? maybe it's for finding that New, Clear Oil.

as pointed out by SKELETONMAN 08/16/2007 @ 08:05am, there is plenty of shame on both sides. but these outrages are perpetrated by governments not by normal people. we need no more death. we need communication.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/16/2007 @ 08:53am
¬v¬ reminding me of the chart I created over a yearago from the hundreds of scenario sims run for years showing what would happen if we took out Saddam and tried to occupy Iraq, in each case regional conflict ensued. A big reason Bush I and Clinton left Saddam in power and did not go in and occupy.

The hsuB/cHeney admin apart from wanting to void impeachment via creating an even bigger mess, are looking at profits, control of ME, via its virtual extermination. They're flooding the area with 100's of thousands of weapons to create as much instability as possible. They've used tons more DU in a area prone to dust storms to weaken a demoralized population to an even greater extent.

All thus just to say, it's about to get thousands of times worse if impeachment isn't initiated in the next few weeks, not months.

XXXXxxxxXXXxxxXXXXxxxXXXxxxxXXxx

Bushfools...still waiting for that apology to the troops for predicting last year that more than a 1000 would die each month in 2007.

Year __Vietnam US dead ___Year__Iraq US dead

1961-65____1864________2003-06____2965

1966_______6053_________2007____14,829

1967______11,058________2008____27,731

1968______16,511________2009____42,983

1969______11,527________2010____30,088

1970________6065________2011____15,645

1971________2348________2012_____5476

1972_________561________2013_____1314

TOTALS

KIA_____58,191________________141,031

WIA___153,303________________375,142

MIA_____2338___________________5641

South Vietnamese ________________Iraqis

KIA____230,000________________611,800

WIA___300,000________________798,000

North Vietnamese ______Iraqi/regional Insurgency

KIA__1,100,000______________2.926,000

WIA__600,000_______________1,596,000

Total Civilians Killed

2-4,000,000_______________5-10,000,000

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/04/2006 @ 9:11pm

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/15/2007 @ 2:50pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 08:53am
Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 08:52am

Only winners should run?

Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2007 @ 08:54am
Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 08:52am

Frita-- its Al Gore, remember it. And the answer to your question is-- anytime he wants to. I've predicted late Oct., but it looks like it may be sooner... But the latest and still win, Dec. Unless there's a draft at the convention-- now that is a longshot if you're talking a longshot, improbable, not impossible though!

XXxxxXXXxxxXXXxxxXXxxxxXXxx

Well, as the article below states-- Al's no longer saying he's fallen out of love with politics and he's never going to let it happen, only just not quite planning on it, yet...

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Gore Says He May Re-Enter Politics Again

"I may re-enter politics at some point in the future because I'm only 59 years old," Gore said. But more telling: "There is no single candidate that is putting forward a comprehensive argument about the environment or making climate change a priority," he said.

Can this finally be a concrete sign that Gore's taking the initial steps back into the political scene so as to set the stage for a surprise announcement early this Fall? Will we soon here Gore say something like: "Yes, it's true. A couple of months ago, I stated that I might someday enter politics again but not the presidential race in '08. But I have now come to the conclusion that I can indeed make the biggest contribution to our great country, and have the greatest impact on the issues I hold near and dear to me--climate control and putting an end to the Iraq war--if I seek the highest job in the land."

Stay tuned. Could get real interesting from here.....

http://tinyurl.com/yqxbxg

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/15/2007 @ 7:34pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 09:02am
Didn't Raygun provide the Soviets with pipeline tech that was intentionally sabotaged. Didn't that stuff blow up, killing some pipeline workers? Why isn't that considered state sponsored terrorism?

Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2007 @ 09:04am
Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 08:52am

c'mon mascarito.

you talk like this is the school ground popularity contest (to which, cynically, i'll admit it is!).

nonetheless, we need dennis and nichols and the majority of the good people who write in these forums to speak out, to let plastic america know that some people actually know and care about issues of importance, not just how much a candidate's haircut cost or how they will stop the dreaded faggies (homosexuals, please take no offense--i can't write the mocking tone in my voice) from gettin' hitched.

otherwise you'll just elect another rubber stamp for the global corporatuvernment.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/16/2007 @ 09:06am
my bad, no one died in the pipeline explosion. Pure luck, though.

Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2007 @ 09:09am
The production and transportation of oil and gas was at the top of the Soviet wish list. A new trans-Siberian pipeline was to deliver natural gas from the Urengoi gas field in Siberia across Kazakhstan, Russia and Eastern Europe, into the hard currency markets of the West. To automate the operation of valves, compressors and storage facilities in such an immense undertaking, the Soviets needed sophisticated control systems. They bought early model computers on the open market, but when Russian pipeline authorities approached the U.S. for the necessary software, they were turned down. Undaunted, the Soviets looked elsewhere; a KGB operative was sent to penetrate a Canadian software supplier in an attempt to steal the needed codes. U.S. intelligence, tipped by Farewell, responded and -- in cooperation with some outraged Canadians -- "improved" the software before sending it on.

Once in the Soviet Union, computers and software, working together, ran the pipeline beautifully -- for a while. But that tranquility was deceptive. Buried in the stolen Canadian goods -- the software operating this whole new pipeline system -- was a Trojan horse. In order to disrupt the Soviet gas supply, its hard-currency earnings from the West and the internal Russian economy, the pipeline software that was to run the pumps, turbines and valves was programmed to go haywire, after a decent interval, to reset pump speeds and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to the pipeline joints and welds.

The result was the most monumental nonnuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space. At the White House, we received warning from our infrared satellites of some bizarre event in the middle of Soviet nowhere. NORAD feared a missile liftoff from a place where no rockets were known to be based. Or perhaps it was a detonation of a small nuclear device. The Air Force chief of intelligence rated it at 3 kilotons, but he was puzzled by the silence of the Vela satellites. They had detected no electromagnetic pulse, characteristic of nuclear detonations. Before these conflicting indicators could turn into an international crisis, Gus Weiss came down the hall to tell his fellow NSC staffers not to worry. It took him another 20 years to tell me why.

Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2007 @ 09:15am
Yeah, get people to accept a president that mangles our language's pronunciation consistently, then mangling its meaning isn't that far behind, not that surprisingly, as also being accepted... Isn't the old sales 'foot in the door' technique?

Imagine that, who would've thought the US was so gullible. A little psychological manipulation, marketing, dumb down the educational system enough long enough, and viola-- sheople! They'll eat whatever BS you put on the plate, a boon for any pres candidate wanting to put their BS on that plate too. Suuure they want to mess that up...

And that's why I'm still looking at Al Gore as the anti-viral hsuB/cHeney inoculation. He's intelligent/articulate, a nerd, moral, believes in our constitution, anti-war, pro-environment,... tons of experience. A Kucinich upgrade? We shoulda had the V-8, and still can!

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 09:41am
Posted by CRABWALK 08/16/2007 @ 08:54am

No, but only winners matter ultimately. In 18 months, Dennis will be back in the House, chairing the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy.....while Hillary, Barack, or John will be MAKING domestic AND foreign policy. Sorry, just the way it is.

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/16/2007 @ 09:06am |

Spokesmen and -women are great, FROSTY. They can make nice speeches, inspire a few folks, and get write-ups in "The Nation"....Presidents and Congressional leadership set the agenda.

Again, sorry, just the way it is.

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 09:49am
Frita-- its Al Gore, remember it. And the answer to your question is-- anytime he wants to. I've predicted late Oct., but it looks like it may be sooner... But the latest and still win, Dec. Unless there's a draft at the convention-- now that is a longshot if you're talking a longshot, improbable, not impossible though!

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/16/2007 @ 09:02am

ROFLMAO....somehow I KNEW that you'd "keep your options open" on a Gore candidacy until right upto the very last second of the last ballot at the Pepsi Center in Denver.

How about we split the diff and ...Christmas...I start razzing you about where I make my check out to the "Gore in '08" Campaign Committee?

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 09:52am
BTW, HSUB...never got an answer to this...

BLOG | Posted 08/13/2007 @ 12:01pm Comments for "Karl Rove Should Stay" by David Corn

"Actually, it will be a lot easier to track r0ves converstaions when he's not in the WH."----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 1:05pm

How would that work EXACTLY?

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 09:54am
So I guess we shouldn't be upset when Iran lists the Delta Force, Navy Seals or CIA operatives as a terrorist organization?

Posted by BlueTexan at 08/16/2007 @ 09:56am
Again, sorry, just the way it is.

Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 09:49am

no, mask, no.

i know that is how it is.

but please, don't give in. don't plasticize yourself. don't dumbdownerize yourself. don't accept it. maybe one day (cue hope-inspiring music), just one day, if good people like yourself continue to speak up we will have inspired and inspiring leaders instead of the drivel that is sure to be spawned at the "Pepsi Centre".

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/16/2007 @ 10:05am
So I guess we shouldn't be upset when Iran lists the Delta Force, Navy Seals or CIA operatives as a terrorist organization?

Posted by BLUETEXAN 08/16/2007 @ 09:56am

most of the world already has.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/16/2007 @ 10:07am
JOHN MASCH NEEDS TO BE STRIPPED OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE BECAUSE HE IS MANIFESTLY TOO STUPID TO HAVE A SAY IN ADULT MATTERS

It's true.

JOHN MAASCH is the kind of assclown who drones on about how George W. Failure is not a "real conservative", blah blah blah. But MAASCH was stupid enough to believe that Failure was a "real con" and voted for him not once but twice, even after a record in office that was 4 years long. Clearly, MAASCH endorses Failure-ism minus George W. Failure himself -- or else MAASCH is too stupid to be allowed to vote of his own volition since he cannot do it properly, defined as in line with his own falsely conscious arithmetic of his own false beliefs.

(By MAASCH's alleged standards, Reagan was not a conservative either since federal spending skyrocketed during his tenure, mostly military spending. But that's old news).

JOHN MAASCH has proven that he cannot correctly cast a ballot for the candidate who correspnds with his political posture. More drastic, JOHN MAASCH cannot not even align his chosen label for his political posture with the substance of his stated positions.

JOHN MASSCH favors the massive State endeavor of inavading and occupying Iraq -- and clearly harbors the same ideation on Iran since these are the thoughts that have been down-loaded into him by rightwing media to which he is blindly obediant. JOHN MAASCH endorses torture and suspension of a detianees' right to be charged with a recognizable crime. Yet, this same be-titted creep and benchwarmer in the game of life JOHN MAASCH calls himself a LIBERTARIAN even as he cavorts with other libertarian regimes such as Red China by giving them rimjobs in order to sell his useless trinkets.

Go figure!

We come now to JOHN MAASCH's latest half-assed mumblings that furnish further hard evidence of severe retardation:

and now they make hostile moves in Iraq, Afganistan

The President of Afghanistan just met with and publically embraced the Iranian government this past week, after claiming that Iran was a vital player in achieving regional harmony last week while George W. Failure ineptly attempted a politically correct muzzling on him.

JOHN MAASCH knows best -- even he is voting against what he says he believes in and acting with an allegiance to statism that would embarass Stalin all the while calling himself a ... get this ... calling himself a liberatarian.

Whatever. What it all means is that it is time for JOHN MAASCH to hustle to Asia on any vessel that can bear his weight and explain to the Afghanis that Iran is in fact hostile to Afganistan.

Bon voyage!

Posted by John_Shaft at 08/16/2007 @ 10:12am
Thank you Mr. Nichols not only for stating the obvious, that the administration is using the tactic of calling Iran's guards terrorists as a pretext to another war, but also for giving Dennis Kucinich credit for being the only congressman to state the obvious. I appreciate your lonely stance as a journalist who is willing, unlike many of your fellow Nation writers, to not black out Kucinich when he takes a vital stand.

On a tangent this, as others have stated, is just further cause to push House res. 333, Kucinich's attempt to introduce impeachment procedings against Cheney. Those who say only sixteen months left (like your colleague A. Cochburn) and we can prosecute later are being unrealistic in regards to the Iran push. Would they like us to be prosecuting for both Iraq and Iran war crimes in Febrauay 2009? What damage was caused in the first 16 months of this administration? Mary Finneran.

Posted by Mary Finner at 08/16/2007 @ 10:17am
Thank you Mr. Nichols not only for stating the obvious, that the administration is using the tactic of calling Iran's guards terrorists as a pretext to another war, but also for giving Dennis Kucinich credit for being the only congressman to state the obvious. I appreciate your lonely stance as a journalist who is willing, unlike many of your fellow Nation writers, to not black out Kucinich when he takes a vital stand.

On a tangent this, as others have stated, is just further cause to push House res. 333, Kucinich's attempt to introduce impeachment procedings against Cheney. Those who say only sixteen months left (like your colleague A. Cochburn) and we can prosecute later are being unrealistic in regards to the Iran push. Would they like us to be prosecuting for both Iraq and Iran war crimes in Febrauay 2009? What damage was caused in the first 16 months of this administration? Mary Finneran.

Posted by Mary Finner at 08/16/2007 @ 10:18am
We need to impeach these traitors before they nuke Iran. That is their ultimate plan. With Syria next.

Posted by BlueSpark at 08/16/2007 @ 10:19am
The point here is that there is plenty of shame on both sides, and that rather than finding reasons to be angry with each other, we should be finding reasons not to escalate.

I would think our good Christian friends would be the ones to offer up this statement. But alas, they are the ones calling for more death to make them feel safe.

Posted by CRABWALK 08/16/2007 @ 08:34am

Which leads me to ask dear LUVVY - who would Jesus nuke?

I wonder how different things might be if after 9/11, when Iran made peaceful overtures to us, if Chimpie had done the Christian thing and responded in kind? Thawed relations, turned them around, had them with us rather then against us.

The world will never know, and we will all suffer as a result.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/16/2007 @ 10:22am
Since, as we now know, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with protecting the American people but rather with creating American hegemony in the Middle East, and since the definition of terrorism is "killing innocent civilians to further a political ideal," and since Bush/Cheney knew for a fact that many civilians (beyond doubt many more than killed on 9/11) would be crushed/ripped apart/burned alive/left to bleed to death as a result of the bombing of Baghdad, then...

Posted by BlueSpark at 08/16/2007 @ 10:27am
A little off topic here, but I just heard NPR state that Hugo Chavez is now making an attempt to eliminate such inconveniences as terms for Presidents. I guess DEE PEEPLE! might accidently make a mistake & elect someone else. Couldn't have THAT!(This would be Step 6 of the "How to Buffalo the People and achieve Real Power" manual) Wonder how his admirers here will react to this.

The face of Socialism never changes: Whether its Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, or minor leaguers like Chavez, the result is the same, no matter how benevolent it appears to start out: the complete subjugation of the people, their rights and productivity to the will of one entity.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/16/2007 @ 10:29am
The face of Facisim never changes: Whether its Hitler, Mousolini, or minor leaguers like Bush, the result is the same, no matter how benevolent it appears to start out: the complete subjugation of the people, their rights and productivity to the will of one entity.

Posted by BlueTexan at 08/16/2007 @ 10:35am
Richard Clarke, the former anti-terror czar co-ordinator, wrote in his book AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, that George W. Failure conducted the confrontation with terror as if he was taking hand-written notes from OBL on what stupidly tragic mis-step to take next. We know, anyway, that George W. Failure and the neo-Clowns were uninterested in so much as convening a meeting on alQ until 4 September 2001 despite Calrke's urging and the previous, highly effective admin's advice. No time to lose, eh! The author of IMPERIAL HUBRIS, who headed the CIA's OBL unit for years, offers much the same conclusions differing mainly in his more colorful prose.

As I posted last week, another man of the establishment (indeed a sworn man of the right) Newt Gingrich has critiqued George W. Failure's War on Terror as a no-substance, largely Public Relations oriented pose -- designed to impress the dismal rightwingers titallated by the image flightsuit drag.

Then, we have a few conclusions from the "Declasslified Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate 'Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States' dated April 2006" (available at www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf):

* "The global jihadist movement...is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts...If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increased attacks worldwide".

* "The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvment in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement".

These are the conclusions of experts tasked to the matter (or, "kooks" in the unaccomplished MAASCH's lexicon).

But the rapid likes of JOHN MAASCH and CRAPPY stick their meaty heads into the Murdoch media like it is a MRI scanner for weeks on end. Then, upon emerging out of this modern form of Platonic cave, they bray and belligerantly intensify their demands for courses of action that are threats to the security of America, her interests and allies.

Draw your own conclusions about the hazard posed by the feral likes of self-hating Americans CRAPPY and JOHN MAASCH.

Posted by John_Shaft at 08/16/2007 @ 10:38am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/16/2007 @ 10:05am

FROSTY, sorry, but I find it simpler to live in the real world.

The world where Nancy Pelosi is still keeping impeachment "off the table" (and even John Conyers tells Cindy Sheehan it's not going to happen).

The world where Al Gore doesn't ride to the rescue and take the nomination from the "corporatists" (odd, for a guy who debated Ross Perot in SUPPORT of NAFTA...but apparently this is "New Gore-Model 3.0")

The world where Cheney doesn't have a secret Israeli sub ready to hit the USS Eisenhower carrier group to facilitate an invasion of Iran.

Where the majority of Democrats (much less the general public) pay attention to Dennis Kucinich.

And where change is incremental, small, even imperceptible sometimes...but still there, and where Hillary, Obama, or Edwards will "move to the Center" for the General Election and govern there if elected...and it will be 1000X better than it was under Bush...but not "the Revolution", which no majority of Americans really want.

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 10:39am
BLOG | Posted 08/16/2007 @ 12:53am Kucinich Sounds the Alarm

???!?!?!?!??!!

Apparently Mr Nichols didn't think his original title was...alarmist...enough!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 10:42am
Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 10:39am

i suppose i should cry.

more people listen to paris hilton than kucinich. most americans who want to attack iran can't find it on a map. saddam caused 9/11. the sky is falling.

yeah, anything will be better than bushco (except guiliani), even (¿especially?) wto/nafta man himself, mr gore.

it's just that if we all keep eating pizza pockets and corn dogs, one day we're going to explode in a bath of trans-fat. we need fibre!!!!!!!!

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/16/2007 @ 11:01am
Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 08/16/2007 @ 10:12am

Tee hee.

still luv ya , Maasch. Deluded as you are...

Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2007 @ 11:18am
somehow I KNEW that you'd "keep your options open" on a Gore candidacy until right upto the very last second of the last ballot at the Pepsi Center in Denver.

Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 09:52am

er, I said my prediction was and still is late Oct.

You're the one that asked what the latest that Al Gore could enter for pres candidacy. Where am I changing my mind?

Oh of course, duh-- you made another mini-straw dildo!?!?! Frita, you just never stop.

Just like those old spinsters with a house full of thousands of cats-- Frita has thousands of straw dildos.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 11:21am
Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 08/16/2007 @ 10:12am

Apparently John Shaft has announced why he has the handle Shaft...and it is up his ass next to his head..you are a complete loon..welcome to the kook section...another front row seater, complete with a hat with a propellar spinning wildly(a red one)..

fear not , for you are in good company.

Posted by john maasch at 08/16/2007 @ 11:21am
"And in an era of mass delusion and denial on the party of leaders in both major political parties, stating the obvious can be a radical act".

Right, yet the likes of Kucinich, Sheehan and anyone else who tells it like it is will be ostricized, condemned, marginalized as the crazy leftist wacko fringe, while those who adhere to the conventional dictates of political correctness, support politicians like Clinton whose views are ironically in conflict with said realities. The reality--these facts-- are simply ignored while the water in the pot goes from a slow simmer to a rapid boil.

Posted by Lil at 08/16/2007 @ 11:24am
Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 08/16/2007 @ 10:38am

I see you speak in tongues...or is it simple jibberish from one of our famous kook sections simpletons...

Posted by john maasch at 08/16/2007 @ 11:24am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/16/2007 @ 11:09am

some good points, but.................

how about just leaving the rest of the world alone? it's their oil, not yours.

"keep a strike force within the area but not in Iraq"--the u.s. already has "strike forces" all around the world (unlike any other nation).

"Unfortunately, that includes Israel."--what, don't arab lives count?

"our armed forces are obsolete when fighting the kind of enemy that exists in the ME"--that's right. what you really need are some well-trained police.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/16/2007 @ 11:25am
Reverend, you seem to ignore the main reason the hardliners are able to hold power in Iran, The US military camped on 2 of Irans borders. I wonder how scared shitless you would be if the tables were turned.

Walk a few feet in someone else's shoes before you sign a death warrant for thousands.

Posted by CRABWALK 08/16/2007 @ 08:37am

CRAB, Maybe we should start calling him the reverend butcher. I just got done listening to a coworker like our reverend friend here ramble on about how it's the liberals fault about Iran.

So, the U.S. invades Iraq (Iran's enemy neighbor, but neighbor just the same) and people like Happy and JM think Iran is going to sit there and do whatever Bushco says?

What kind of crack are these right wing nutcases smoking? Bush and his fellow idiots managed to screw up Iraq and can't get control of it. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, it should have declared martial law in Iraq until the dust truly was settled, sealed the friggin borders and taken all weapons immediately. The morons in charge took none of these steps. They were more worried about securing the oilfields...big surprise there. So now we are in the situation we are in today.

You guys can blame the dems all you like, but it was your flippin moron president, vice president and secretary of defense who screwed up the Iraq situation. The biggest mistake they made was invading in the first place, but after making the mistake of invading, they turned around and performed a comedy of errors.

Unfortunately, that comedy of errors isn't funny but rather tragic to all those who have either died or had family members who have died during this screwed up mess they've gotten us into....and now you guys wish to go after Iran?

Go thump your bibles and try to get God on your side boys. Maybe while you are at it God will tell you to get your butts on down to your local recruiter and enlist in what's left of our army, you war loving holy souls. It's the least you can do since you believe so heavily our nation fighting these wars.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/16/2007 @ 11:26am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/16/2007 @ 11:09am

I see Frank has taken to drinking...sad.

Posted by john maasch at 08/16/2007 @ 11:27am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/16/2007 @ 11:21am

Whatever, MAASCH. Just as long as you don't vote. Hand it over to your a wife, a responsible adult. Don't be too proud to have your vote diapered up for your own good and and for the nation. Drunks should not wield loaded guns and ballots need to be kept out of your hands. Period.

Posted by John_Shaft at 08/16/2007 @ 11:27am
still luv ya , Maasch. Deluded as you are...

Posted by CRABWALK 08/16/2007 @ 11:18am

Dittos...on both...tee hee,,

AND, like mask, I want to send ALGORE a check so he can run.

Posted by john maasch at 08/16/2007 @ 11:28am
"our armed forces are obsolete when fighting the kind of enemy that exists in the ME"

plus, why do you have enemies in the ME? no one is attacking sweden or bhutan, are they?

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/16/2007 @ 11:29am
I see I have taken to drinking...sad.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/16/2007 @ 11:27am

Posted by John_Shaft at 08/16/2007 @ 11:29am
There are numerous problems with attacking Iran.FrankGrits touched on some like the fact that we don't have the army to attack them with.You do not win a war unless you can put boots on the ground or nuke the country into oblivion,but nuking would cause a few problems.The other countries in the ME may not want all that fallout landing on them and China might get upset if we nuke their oil supply.Nuking Russian scientists and their families may not go over very well,either.We don't want to upset China by coming down on them for killing our kids,adults,and pets so do we want them really angry by bombing their oil supply?Who would finance Bush's wars if we make China mad?What will happen to our economy if we make China angry?Thanks to Bush China has alot of power over us and are now the worlds true super power.They'll decide what happens with Iran and not us.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/16/2007 @ 11:34am
What you know? SHAFT is JR! or just another brainless copycat plagerizer the Left media is just so good at mass producing!

Posted by Happy at 08/16/2007 @ 11:37am
Posted by HAPPY 08/16/2007 @ 01:16am

It was the Left, after the onset of the Iraq War, that kept harping on Bush not dealing with Iran.

I read quite a bit, and I have never come across anyone on the so-called "left" asking Bush to do anything with Iran other than leave it alone. Where are you getting this from?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/16/2007 @ 06:10am

Iran needs to defend itself against whom?

Perhaps U.S.? By this logic, the U.S. should give up its nukes, right?

Israel never said Iran needs to be wiped off the map.

Neither did Iran.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.htm l

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/16/2007 @ 06:31am

As usual, your capability to double-think amazes. We have to attack them because they looked at us funny. They are the aggressors! Maybe you should spend more time contemplating the turn the other cheek verse. Particularly, I'd like to know how you square 19 lives lost in a bombing requiring many more than would be lost in a war - and your professed beliefs in the teachings of Jesus. Are you not turning people against God with this hypocrisy?

Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 09:49am

Presidents and Congressional leadership set the agenda.

We set the agenda. These people are our representatives. If they are representing us, then we don't even have a republic much less a democracy.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/16/2007 @ 10:29am

Socialism isn't the problem. It's autocratic dictators that are the problem. Yes, this includes Chavez. Any questions? Or can we move on from the lame ass non sequitur?

Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 10:39am

The real world. Where we have no voice. Where are given a less than evil choice. And we LIKE it! Shoot. Why not vote for full on evil? Why except something lesser?

Sorry, Mask. If something is broke, the idea is to find ways to change it, not sit back and enjoy it.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/16/2007 @ 11:09am

The U.S. couldn't possibly win a conventional war with Iran.

Beg to differ. The U.S. could win a war. It just can't win the peace. It's the second part that these nutjobs can't learn. Didn't remember the lesson for Iraq. Not remembering it now. Likely won't remember it in the future when they talk about how if we just would have hung on for another few decades everything would have turned up roses.

I'm beginning to think conservative is another word for ignorant.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/16/2007 @ 11:39am
the liberals fault about Iran.

Posted by WOLFGANG1 08/16/2007 @ 11:26am

Beyond belief.

They have all the levers of government in their hands for all almost all of the decade and implement their plans largely unimpeded, creating the "new realities" that Suskind's source (likley Rove) extolled.

And yet some other alien force within is actually all-controlling !!!!

And in this case with a regard to a really tractable problem that it is one that their own media echo chamber has trumped up as a "PROBLEM !!!", endlessly, ad nausieum, for years now.

These conservimals* are deeply sick, sick bastards with a pathological need to agress histrionically in the conviction that everyone is their enemy -- and then blame whomever they think will not contest the matter when they make a foul, maggot-laden shitmess of every fucking thing they touch.

* Think, "conservative" crossed with "criminal" or "animal".

Posted by John_Shaft at 08/16/2007 @ 11:40am
Posted by HAPPY 08/16/2007 @ 11:37am

hey HAPS, ready for another 5 martini lunch?

just teasing. all this drink talk is making me thirstier than georgie bush!!

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/16/2007 @ 11:41am
The U.S. couldn't possibly win a conventional war with Iran...So, the answer remains diplomacy and sanctions.

True, but the Bush/Cheney view of diplomacy is "don't even acknowledge them until they do what we want, then talk to them," which is another way of saying "we don't do diplomacy." And sanctions, well, we have seen the very severe limits on Bush's patience when it comes to sanctions.

It's simple: impeach him or we will use nuclear weapons on Iran.

Posted by BlueSpark at 08/16/2007 @ 11:41am
Posted by HAPPY 08/16/2007 @ 11:37am

Son, isn't it time you put down the porn magazine and enlisted in George W. Failure's hallowed crusade? They are taking guys into their 40s now, so the sky is the limit with regard to what you can do in the signature battle of the coming generations, as defined by your Maximum CheerLeader, "The Commander Guy".

Your mouth has signed the check. Your ass now needs to cash it.

Posted by John_Shaft at 08/16/2007 @ 11:43am
Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 08/16/2007 @ 11:40am

It's the MSM! It's Bill Clinton! It's Saddam! It's the Iranians!

The Merchants of Accountability love it - only as long as it applies to someone else. What I personally can't stand is all the whining. Oh...I just got done ordering torture of unknown hundreds - but they main stream media doesn't like me...boo...hoo.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/16/2007 @ 11:46am
BTW, HSUB...never got an answer to this...

BLOG | Posted 08/13/2007 @ 12:01pm Comments for "Karl Rove Should Stay" by David Corn

"Actually, it will be a lot easier to track r0ves converstaions when he's not in the WH."----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 1:05pm

How would that work EXACTLY?

Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 09:54am

Go back and look. I answerred it a long time ago. Frita just doesn't look at answers as she's too preoccupied, er, obsessed with her straw dildos. I kept asking Frita to just ask a question honestly, rather than creating just another straw dildo-- one where she asks a question-- just to knock it down before it's answerred, rather than ever being honest:

VVvvvvVVVvvvvVVvvvVVVVvvvVVVvvv

(What am I saying?!?!...Of CORUSE, you can't!...heheh)

Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 2:10pm

So Frita, say you're taking back what you said before and I will-- otherwise you are full of shit, again.

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 4:33pm

And he chooses.......DODGING.

Big surprise.

heheh

Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 4:46pm

And so Frita chooses to make and play with another straw dildo. She does like her straw dildos after all.

But now that you've proven that that's all you are, Frita, one big straw dildo making straw dildos in your own image...

But except for you, most people already know this stuff. It's no secret. Here's just a little:

http://tinyurl.com/59gfn

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/062000/0006006.html

http://tinyurl.com/29lptg

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_06.php

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/crime/story/91460.html

http://www.filesland.com/download/surveillance.html

yada yada yada

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 5:58pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 11:48am
I'm beginning to think conservative is another word for ignorant.

Posted by SRJENKINS 08/16/2007 @ 11:39am

unfortunately, these ignorant people speak in the name of conservatism, while only professing a belief in ignorance.

obviously sometimes we need to "conserve", sometimes we need to "liberalize". but be ignorant--never!

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/16/2007 @ 11:49am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/16/2007 @ 10:29am

chip, wanna hit chavez where it hurts?

Use less oil.

CONSERVatism

Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2007 @ 11:56am
We set the agenda. These people are our representatives. If they are representing us, then we don't even have a republic much less a democracy. ---Posted by SRJENKINS 08/16/2007 @ 11:39am

Yes, SRJ....and right now, the folks that like Rep. Kucinich's agenda...are a SMALL minority of DEMOCRATS (not even into the general public)

TWO percent (2%), according to a ABC/Wash Post poll of July 31.

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 11:59am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/16/2007 @ 11:48am |

Well, REAL QUICK, HSUB...answer it again. (shouldn't be that complicated if you understand it)

How is it now "easier to track Rove's (or rOve's) conversations now that he's not in the White House"?

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 12:01pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/16/2007 @ 11:49am

I don't have anything against conservatism. I just have something against ignorance. I see it on all sides - right and left - but the lion's share of ignorance are people calling themselves conservatives, beating their chests, and aping whatever talking points that happened to hear on Fox News, talk radio, or from the "internets".

Yon, Cato and John Birch said it. It must be true. Those are "independent" sources not controlled by MSM.

Idiots.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/16/2007 @ 12:03pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/16/2007 @ 11:46am

Yes, as usual, you have hit the bull's eye. And also earlier with regard to MASK trying to peddle unalloyed, self-conciously formulated, bargain basement cynicism as ... the "new wisdom".

As I implied above, the trouble with Iran is highly tractable. Inspections would insure that the nuke program is civilian in Iran. Inspections under UN auspices were demonstrably effective in Iraq, post 1991, in dismantling what had formerly been a considerable offensive capability -- in contrast with the demonstrably disasterous and brazenly falsely-premised George W. Failure vandalism of the total, 100% UN success in disarming Iraq led by seasoned professionals like W. Scott Ritter.

Iran obviously wants to be recongized as evidenced by their government's unsolicited and extraordinary letter of a year ago. If this potentially wealthy, dazzling cultured nation was a valued ally for a generation up to 1979, it may be left to others to explain what the alleged "intractable problem" with things Persian is today.

The US has its greviences over the clearly illegal hostage seizure in 1979. However, G.W. Failure and Blair placated the terroristically murderous Libyan government, which is in the same hands today as when bombing civilian airliners with Qadafy at the apex of the flowchart. I will leave it to right wing conservimals to go all relativistic and defend their buddy Qadafy, the 1908s version of OBL. Iran is a far more important player with much less of this hideous kind of "baggage" ...

Posted by John_Shaft at 08/16/2007 @ 12:03pm
United states, +- 250 military bases around the world

Iran-?

COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Forces Comments

SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.

ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.

CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.

HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.

IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.

HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.

CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.

NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.

CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War

KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.

PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.

NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.

CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.

PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos

CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.

PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.

GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base . MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.

NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.

SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.

NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.

IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.

OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.

PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914.

HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.

KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.

CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.

NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.

HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.

NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.

HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.

CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.

CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.

PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.

HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.

NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas

MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.

COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.

MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.

HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.

CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.

WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.

RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks

PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections . HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.

YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.

GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.

WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.

TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.

CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.

HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.

PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.

CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.

EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.

WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.

DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.

IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.

YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.

URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.

GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.

GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.

CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.

PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce . KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats

U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.

IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.

VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.

GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua. EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.

LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.

IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.

CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.

PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.

VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.

LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.

CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.

CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.

PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return . INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.

DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.

UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.

CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.

OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.

SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.

MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.

CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president. CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.

ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels. IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution. LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers. EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash. NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution. LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution. HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders. IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf. LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't. BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region. IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war. LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm. PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup. PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed. LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war. SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel. IRAQ 1990-? Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military. KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne. LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising. SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction. YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro. BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs. HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup. ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins. LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant. AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies. IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions. YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo. YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed. MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels. UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen. PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao. COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline. IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. Clashes on border with Syria. LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader. HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines land after rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington. PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, covert operation CIA airstrikes on Al Qaeda refuge villages kill civilians SOMALIA 2007 Missiles, naval AC-130 strikes; naval blockade and Cruise missile attacks against Islamist rebels

Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2007 @ 12:04pm
Above, should read:

"I will leave it to right wing conservimals to go all relativistic and defend their buddy Qadafy, the 1980s version of OBL."

- and -

"in contrast with the demonstrably disasterous and brazenly falsely-premised George W. Failure vandalism of the total, 100% UN success in disarming Iraq that had been led by seasoned professionals like W. Scott Ritter."

If I was a conservaLoser, I would blame Bill Clinton for the syntactic errors under my name ...

Posted by John_Shaft at 08/16/2007 @ 12:08pm
Yep, US imperialism is just a figment of the "lefts" imagination. No substance to that argument at all.

Keep them blinders on.

Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2007 @ 12:08pm
Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 11:59am

That's weak Mask. For one, those polls are based on likely Democratic and causus voters. Little different than "Democrats".

I'm for Kucinich's agenda. But if someone were to ask me: "If the 2008 Democratic primary for president were being held today...for whom would you vote?" It would be a toss up between Dennis and other - because I'm iffy about Dennis even if I like his politics.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/16/2007 @ 12:08pm
So fine, Mr Nichols, give Rep. Kucinich his "place in history", maybe he deserves it. But as for CURRENT importance...it isn't there.

If he wins a primary, or even comes in SECOND...then you've got something. Until then....sorry, but no.

Posted by MARY

There you go, mary, continue doing what you've always done. The system can't function without tools like you.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/16/2007 @ 12:10pm
Qadafy?

you mean that terrorist that gets ag subsidies from tax proceeds removed from Maasch/Happy/Chips pockets?

say it ain't so...

Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2007 @ 12:10pm
The civil rights movement is nothing but a small, vocal minority.

Ignore them. They will be gone by 1966.

the silent majority will win out in the end, keeping those brown people where they belong.

same with the anti-war movement, womens rights, environmental "extremists" and on and on and on

Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2007 @ 12:12pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/16/2007 @ 11:21am

You're a hoot.

For whatever bizarre reason, you come here to an overtly unfriendly site to bloviate and inflame. You have inspired even the most thoughtful posters to respond to your posts with derision and disrespect. For the most part, the only bloggers here who do not completely reject your diatribes are the other trolls.

And yet you still seem to think that you can marginalize posters such as WILL, or SHAFT, or MTSPENCE with your profound excretions.

That's fucking hilarious.

Posted by drhammer at 08/16/2007 @ 12:13pm
And speaking of conservaLosers who denigrate the UN's great success in disarming Iraq though UNSCOM and celebrate George W. Failure's implimentation of an anti-terro strategy that serves the interests of OBL, according to seasoned experts: When the great football coach Bill Walsh died recently, I was thinking how this giant and innovator, this gernerous-of-spirit born winner must have been a scourge to conservaLosers for the embodiment of excellance that he represented.

The conservaLoser's idea of a great leader on the gridiron? Someone like Rich Kotite. Rod Rust (career record: 1-15). Or Joe Bugel. A loser, like George W. Failure, a stain on his team.

Bill Walsh = Franklin Roosevelt = Bill Clinton = Winner!

Joe Bugel = Richard Nixon = George W. Failure = Loser!

Posted by John_Shaft at 08/16/2007 @ 12:16pm
Posted by CRABWALK 08/16/2007 @ 12:04pm

thanks

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/16/2007 @ 12:17pm
Well, the more front-running candidates can later appoint him secretary of state. I remember well his term as mayor of cleveland and how there was a perfect storm of circumstances including blizzards and lack of road salt due to poor planning by the prior mayor's office that caused a precipitous downfall of city government, ending in default, that kucinich took all the blame for. his political career was ruined at the time, his wife divorced him, etc. I was pleasantly surprised when I heard several years later after moving away from cleveland that he had become a congressman. Wouldn't it be ironic if somehow he became the president to succeed the mess known as "Dumbya"

Posted by odysseus14 at 08/16/2007 @ 12:34pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 08/16/2007 @ 12:13pm | ignore this person

It's Maasch's (and the other trolls') version of the Mitt & Sons substitute for actually enlisting to fight the wars they claim to support. C'mon, trolls, support the troops - take the yellow ribbon magnets off of your vehicles, get to a recruiting station, enlist and go fight your own battles, so that at least some of the troops can be spelled from those hellholes. You all love war so much, so join up and join in.

Posted by jmusolino at 08/16/2007 @ 12:36pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/16/2007 @ 12:08pm

SRJ, what's "weak"....are Rep. Kucinich's NUMBERS.

My gosh, are you trying to claim that if the polls were OUTSIDE of Democratic voters, that Kucinich would score HIGHER than he does?

How can a guy be losing DEMOCRATS by 2% (to even people like Bill Richardson at 11%, not to even get to Hillary, Obama, or Edwards)....yet somehow win 50+% of Americans over??!?!?!?!?

It's great that you support Kucinich's agenda......but you're in a tiny minority of DEMOCRATIC voters, much less amongst the general public who has not, despite Bush's failures and the 2006 elections (with the numerous "Blue Dogs" elected) suddenly become "Peace & Freedom Party" members.

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 12:36pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/16/2007 @ 12:10pm

What system would that be, Empty?

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 12:37pm
he is usually too simplistic in his approach. Perhaps that is why he never gets anywhere. He doesn't seem to be a deep thinker. We can ill afford to have a President who doesn't think things through.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/16/2007 @ 12:40pm

FRANK, gotta tell ya, you're a brave man to throw THAT out...heheh

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 12:44pm
Rep. Kucinich's likes to throw red meat to the far left in this country.

Posted by FRANKGRITS

Somebody needs to do that, to point out the emperor has no clothes. Hillary has clearly demonstrated she will not, as have all the other "front runners" in both parties.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/16/2007 @ 12:48pm
August 16, 2007

Quote of the Day

"Dreams come true. Without that possibility, nature would not incite us to have them." – John Updike

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 12:51pm
And then there are the nightmares, hsuB/cHeney admin getting everything they want, based from a lower nature we all must struggle to over-come. Well, except for those that like it there, down there at the lower depths of human nature, that reptilian cold blooded dimension that sanctifies might makes right, winning and profits is what it's all about, say do anything, lie, kill, torture, destroy, control, for greed is good, me/mine come first and empathy for everything else beyond that doesn't really exsist-- unless there's a profit in it for me. Yep, nightmares do also exsist. Wonder if that's what happened all the extinct species, preferred base nightmares to dreams of higher value?

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 1:02pm
It's sad that my dream--a geniune choice between the candidate representing one party and the other--is nothing more than a medicinal marijuana pipe induced fantasy.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/16/2007 @ 1:06pm
Perhaps that is why he never gets anywhere.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/16/2007 @ 12:40pm

i imagine he never gets anywhere because he's short and has big ears. plastic america could never go for that--nor will they ever be given the opportunity.

if kucinich looked like a movie star..................................

plus, he's gotten to be mayor of a big city, and now is a representative in u.s. congress. that's further than me or (i imagine) you.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/16/2007 @ 1:07pm
We're not electing statemen/women, we're buying soap detergent.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/16/2007 @ 1:14pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/16/2007 @ 11:48am |

Well, REAL QUICK, HSUB...answer it again. (shouldn't be that complicated if you understand it)

How is it now "easier to track Rove's (or rOve's) conversations now that he's not in the White House"?

Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 12:01pm

But Frita it doesn't work that way. Just because you like playing with straw dildos doesn't mean others like playing with your straw dildos too.

I gave you lots of reading material in which you may 'learn' the answer. "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will ..." The answer is there if you choose to 'learn' it. If you learn it-- perhaps you can let go of your compulsion to create straw dildos!?!?! Imagine that, a straw-less, dildo-less Frita!?!?! Can there be such a thing?!?!?

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 1:15pm
Kucinich will get my vote. If he doesn't survive the primary, I will go with one of the minority parties. I am tired of settling for the lesser of two evils. It would be the first time that I have not voted for the Democratic ticket.

Posted by P. J. Casey at 08/16/2007 @ 1:35pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/16/2007 @ 11:21am

Can you at least learn to spell the word propeller, if you insist on using it so much?

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 08/16/2007 @ 1:36pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS

And who's fault is that? Stop blaming those of us for not playing the little bs game for the failure of the Dems; it's their own damn fault.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/16/2007 @ 2:11pm
is nothing more than a medicinal marijuana pipe induced fantasy.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/16/2007 @ 1:06pm

Geez, man....what kind of weed are you getting ahold of? Back in my smoking days, I NEVER had "induced fantasies"!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 2:14pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/16/2007 @ 12:31pm

We've all speculated about the trolls who may or may not be paid operatives.

(If it's true, someone's not getting their money's worth here.)

Posted by drhammer at 08/16/2007 @ 2:18pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/16/2007 @ 1:15pm

No, HSUB, here's what the deal is. You typed in and hit "Submit" back on Monday with ...

"Actually, it will be a lot easier to track r0ves converstaions when he's not in the WH."----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 1:05pm

And then when called on it went into a tangential rant about "straw dildos"...and didn't answer the question....BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.

It was just a bullshit throwaway line, but now, due to your massive ego and/or inferiority complex can't back away from...and CERTAINLY can't support.

WHO will "track Rove's conversations outside the WH"? The FBI? The NSA? Why will they do that?

The House Judiciary Committee?...the Senate Jud. Committee?....under what authority and by what means? "The Nation" or Huffington Post going to wire-tap Rove's phone?

Here's the point where you can say "Okay, okay. You're right, it can't be done, I was just b's'ing...let's just drop it"....and I will, word of honor.

Or you TRY to explain how "Rove's conversations will be tracked"...and I pick it apart.

Or you keep dodging the question, throwing out ad hominems, and continue to prove you're full of crap on THIS...and much more.

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 2:20pm
Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 2:20pm

i think HSUB's point was to say that r0ve has been untouchable while in the white house (e-mails, testimony) and that now he's out, he'll be like the rest of us, fair game for the eaves-dropping menace he helped create.

just speculation. i took it as sarcastic rage. you seem to need an answer so i thought i'd help you get some sleep.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/16/2007 @ 3:00pm
You're the one that asked what the latest that Al Gore could enter for pres candidacy. Where am I changing my mind?----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/16/2007 @ 11:21am

One's your "prediction", HSUB. The other "How long can Manbearpig wait to enter?"...to which you said-

"But the latest and still win, Dec. Unless there's a draft at the convention-- now that is a longshot if you're talking a longshot, improbable, not impossible though!"

So, come late October and your ORIGINAL prediction fails, you still have your December prediction. Then come late December, you still have the "not impossible" chance of a "draft Al" at the Pepsi Center prediction.

So essentially, you can keep claiming it's still possible right upto Hillary's acceptance speech (At which point we'll see you go "Gore may run in 2012 if she sells us out")

(BTW, I answered your Conyers question on David Corn's thread)

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 3:05pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/16/2007 @ 2:01pm

That's a sure fire way of electing another republican.

And it will be the failures of the Democratic party that put them there. Not the voters that took at what was being offered up and decided to vote elsewhere.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/16/2007 @ 3:07pm
yeah, anything will be better than bushco (except guiliani), even (¿especially?) wto/nafta man himself, mr gore.-Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/16/2007 @ 11:01am

True, but better watch that bad talk about HSUB's beloved Al (who is no "Al Gore 3.0"...NAFTA Al was 2.0....pro-life Al from the 80s was 1.0 with no Spell-Checker...heheh)

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/16/2007 @ 3:00pm

No, HSUB actually thinks that Rove's conversations will be easier to track now that he's out of the White House....or just babbling on. If he was as succinct as you or meant that, we could have a serious discussion.

As for "Rove a victim of the NSA Spying program"...two problems. 1. Bush isn't going to spy on his own guy and reveal what he says. 2. "President Hillary" tries it and both the Left AND Right will finally ally to end the program (the Right will push for impeachment...heheh).

Either way, ain't happenin'.

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 3:10pm
As for "Rove a victim of the NSA Spying program"...two problems. 1. Bush isn't going to spy on his own guy and reveal what he says. 2. "President Hillary" tries it and both the Left AND Right will finally ally to end the program (the Right will push for impeachment...heheh).

Either way, ain't happenin'.

Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 3:10pm

i know.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/16/2007 @ 3:18pm
MASK,

A general comment, NOT unfriendly....rather, amazement! IF I stay on this blog all day, I don't think I can pound out the keystrokes you do! What's more, your back and forth w/HSUB and you-know-who have reached the point....that I think you're doing them by rote or some kind of macros!

Posted by Happy at 08/16/2007 @ 4:27pm
Posted by HAPPY 08/16/2007 @ 4:27pm

I credit the Macintosh 1983 model computer. I got "D"s in typing in high school. Got to college, didn't want to handwrite all my papers, etc. and found the Mac (remember those single units with the black and white screens?) and learned to type with "MacWrite"....went from 18 words a minute to about 60.

As for HSUB, he's pretty predictable. Dem leadership comes out with an anti-impeachment statement...he digs up one from A YEAR AGO and says "Nuh-huh, they don't mean what they said last week, they mean what they said just before the November 2006 elections...when....uh....they needed to energize the base and turn out the vote and....HEY!"

Who's "you-know-who"? WILL? Or SPENCE?

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 4:49pm
Sounds like you've got an admirer, mary. "Happy" is code for gay you know. (Not that there's anything wrong with that--disclaimer.)

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/16/2007 @ 5:05pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/16/2007 @ 1:15pm

No, HSUB, here's what the deal is. You typed in and hit "Submit" back on Monday with ...

"Actually, it will be a lot easier to track r0ves converstaions when he's not in the WH."----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/13/2007 @ 1:05pm

And then when called on it went into a tangential rant about "straw dildos"...and didn't answer the question....BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.

Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 2:20pm

(What am I saying?!?!...Of CORUSE, you can't!...heheh)

Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 2:10pm

You don't ask questions Frita, you create straw dildos. You say you ask a question but you premise it with the waggle of the straw dildo you create first. You need to learn how to ask a question without the straw dildo part. Well that's assuming you can actually be honest.

And Frita, I did answer your question-- you just don't like the answer and won't read it because you'd rather play with your straw dildos.

Hey I tried to stear you away from that shit, but if that's your thing, fill up your house with thousands straw dildos, I ain't gonna visit you there that's all. It would be called 'tough love' if I loved you that is.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 5:13pm
"But the latest and still win, Dec. Unless there's a draft at the convention-- now that is a longshot if you're talking a longshot, improbable, not impossible though!"

Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 3:05pm

Well, if you 'edit' what I said, take it out context of the article I was also addressing, it sure does look different-- aye, like taking a lot off the top is an old straw dildo trick of yourn, aye. Now read the whole thing I wrote again and then read what you cut out. Yourn tends to imply a whole lot different take than what I wrote. I state what my prediction was and is and then state the answer to your question and the improbability but still possibility of it. If you want to waggle another straw dildo about me backing out of what I predicted before, I'm not-- you are-- by asking a different question than when I said I thought Al Gore would be entering. What's the latest he can enter, is a different question from when I think he's enterring. Two questions two different answers. Clearly I could always have articulated it better, however you don't seem to handle subtlety or see destintions very well. Might I suggest you work on that as well.

Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 08:52am

Frita-- its Al Gore, remember it. And the answer to your question is-- anytime he wants to. I've predicted late Oct., but it looks like it may be sooner... But the latest and still win, Dec. Unless there's a draft at the convention-- now that is a longshot if you're talking a longshot, improbable, not impossible though!

XXxxxXXXxxxXXXxxxXXxxxxXXxx

Well, as the article below states-- Al's no longer saying he's fallen out of love with politics and he's never going to let it happen, only just not quite planning on it, yet...

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Gore Says He May Re-Enter Politics Again

"I may re-enter politics at some point in the future because I'm only 59 years old," Gore said. But more telling: "There is no single candidate that is putting forward a comprehensive argument about the environment or making climate change a priority," he said.

Can this finally be a concrete sign that Gore's taking the initial steps back into the political scene so as to set the stage for a surprise announcement early this Fall? Will we soon here Gore say something like: "Yes, it's true. A couple of months ago, I stated that I might someday enter politics again but not the presidential race in '08. But I have now come to the conclusion that I can indeed make the biggest contribution to our great country, and have the greatest impact on the issues I hold near and dear to me--climate control and putting an end to the Iraq war--if I seek the highest job in the land."

Stay tuned. Could get real interesting from here.....

http://tinyurl.com/yqxbxg

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/15/2007 @ 7:34pm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/16/2007 @ 09:02am

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 5:59pm
Who's "you-know-who"? WILL? Or SPENCE?

Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 4:49pm

In recent days and more continuously, EMPTY!

WILL must be getting his hormone shots somewhere or on some gay cruise.....Oh, I only `see' EMPTY and WILL when you/others quote their comings & goings! I have MY principals.....LOL!

Posted by Happy at 08/16/2007 @ 6:10pm
Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 2:20pm

i think HSUB's point was to say that r0ve has been untouchable while in the white house (e-mails, testimony) and that now he's out, he'll be like the rest of us, fair game for the eaves-dropping menace he helped create.

just speculation. i took it as sarcastic rage. you seem to need an answer so i thought i'd help you get some sleep.

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/16/2007 @ 3:00pm

FZ,

Actually your not that far off, yet it's not just the NSA/c, CIA, DoD, ATT,... etc., that has the ability to hack a phone, computer, listen through walls, has surveilence equipment, most firms have a department with that equipment and it can be bought a lot easier than a machine gun. What's different from being in the WH is that r0ve won't have the same security watching you's watching and trying to listen to him. And everyone will be and without anyone knowing it.

Didn't anyone read the links I added to my answer to Frita? Aaah ggeeeeze, kids, what are ya gonna do...

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 6:17pm
I have MY principals.....LOL!

Posted by HAPPY

It's principles, dumbass. You don't even know how to spell it.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/16/2007 @ 6:20pm
Yep, people do sometimes have pretty bad principals and thus can't spell per didn't get enough discipline... er, or he just has low principles?

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 6:24pm
Still, Al has a lots less to do than Hillary to move the polls up once he enters.

USA Today/Gallup Poll. Aug. 3-5, 2007. N=1,012 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Next, we'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. How about Hillary Clinton?"

Date____Favorable__Unfavorable__Never Heard of__Unsure

8/3-5/07_____47 ________49__________- __________3

7/12-15/07___47 ________48__________- __________5

XxxxxXXxxxXXxxxXXXxxxx

Al Gore: Favorability Ratings

Gallup Poll. July 12-15, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Next, we'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. How about Al Gore?"

Date__________Favorable__Unfavorable__Unsure

7/12-15/07_______51 ________40 ________8

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2007 @ 6:55pm
"Happy" is code for gay you know. ----Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/16/2007 @ 5:05pm

And, uh....how do YOU know that?

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 7:55pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/16/2007 @ 6:17pm

Cool. WHO's going to pay for it, HSUB? The DNC? Patrick Leahy? John Conyers? Some "front group"? Larry Flynt?

Great...after YEARS of complaining (rightfully I might add) about Bush invading people's privacy and violating the 4th Amendment....the Left and/or Democrats are going to "warrentlessly wire-tap" Karl Rove like a "Dick Cheney terrorist suspect"?

How will that play in the public....or on Fox News?...heheh

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 8:01pm
Thank you, John Nichols, for your supportive article "Kucinich Sounds the Alarm".

In your article you stated:

"Delivering the response that should be coming from New York Senator Hillary Clinton, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and especially from Delaware Senator Joe Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he isn't campaigning for president, Kucinich argued that, "Our nation is better served by demanding sensible and responsible diplomatic foreign policy initiatives from the Bush Administration."

The lack of response from a number of candidates begs the question----WHY? Why do some candidates fail to speak out, when Dennis Kucinich is willing to do so?

I think the answer may be found by looking for a common demoninator among some candidates in the field. With a little research we discover that Clinton, Obama, Biden, Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd, are ALL members of the Council on Foreign Relations - a private "think tank" with offices located in Manhatten and Washington D.C. It does not sound too threatening until you familiarize yourself with the core mission of the CFR:

"Bill Clinton’s Georgetown mentor and fellow CFR member Carroll Quigley says: “The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England ...and... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one world rule established.”.

Surprisingly, its own members admit its goal is to subvert the democratic process. Another CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy, Admiral Chester Ward, writes “The main purpose of the CFR is promoting the disarmament of US sovereignty and national dependence and submergence into and all powerful, one world government.”

Membership in this organization, in my view, goes a long way to answering the "why" behind the lack of substance, the constant equivocating, and, in some instances, the total silence that we see coming from certain candidates.

Let's take a moment to analyze the "why" behind some candidates unwillingness to impeach Dick Cheney.

Could it have something to do with the fact that Dick Cheney is also a member of the CFR? Could it be that, in reality, the CFR/Candidates and Mr. Cheney are ON THE SAME PAGE politically and ideologically? In my view, the answer is a resounding YES.

People need to become aware that the public battles between the Republicans and Democrats are just for show. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, in the private meetings and roundtable sessions conducted at CFR headquarters, you have BOTH PARTIES, sitting side by side, discussing, planning, and even implementing Domestic, Foreign, and Global policy WITHOUT any oversite whatsoever from WE THE PEOPLE.

Any independents, swing voters, or fellow democrats that have now dropped to their knees to pray that Al Gore will run for President so that we might be "saved" should think twice about that. You see, I have bad news for you. Al Gore is also a member of the CFR.

Gore has been given a job to do, and he is doing it handsomely I might add. He has conducted over 1,000 slide show presentations around the country on the evils of C02 and advocating it as the root cause of Global Warming. His movie "An Inconvenient Truth" emphasizes C02 as the culprit, with little, if any mention of Industrial pollution. He also does a great job making you feel guilty when he says things like: "China is waaaaay ahead of us on reducing car fuel emissions"...

This brings us to the next question: How does Gore's membership in the CFR relate to his presentation on Global Warming?

While the CFR endorses protecting the worlds environment, its reason for doing do is rooted in their core egenda:

"Proposed “Carbon Taxes” place carbon expenditure ratings on mundane human activities. Contrary to popular misconceptions, CO2 is by no means a pollutant. As an essential gas for life, plants thrive on increased levels of CO2 which in turn they produce higher levels of oxygen. Furthermore, carbon based life forms emit carbon to the atmosphere, hence a “Carbon Tax” is a tariff for doing nothing but maintaining life. A popular movement lead by the CFR’s own Al Gore would have you believe CO2 is the root cause of environmental woes while ignoring real industrial pollution in developing countries. There are serious environmental problems that are ignored in favor of issues that can be used to tax the broad population."

I don't think I would be out of line for suggesting the possibility that Corporate members of the CFR, like Exxon, Mobile, Texaco, Ford and General Motors, had some input in the design and content of Al Gore's larger than life PowerPoint presentation.

So....how do WE THE PEOPLE, get out of this horrid mess? Is there any possible way to prevent waking up one morning to find out that our Constitution has been shredded, our Democratic process replaced, and our country now merged like Kinkos with Fed Ex into a New World Order run by a small elite group of politicians and corporations?

In my view there is one hope, and that hope is Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.

As noted earlier in Nichols article, Dennis is willing to speak out when others remain silent. He can do this, in part, because he is NOT a member of the CFR. He IS, however, a member of the Democratic Party. He DOES carry a copy of the Constitution of the United States in his pocket...and he has a proven record of speaking honestly and intelligently about where he stands on the issues and concerns facing our country. While the other candidates are spending part of their time over at CFR trying to figure out how to destroy us, Dennis Kucinich has a 12 point plan for getting us out of Iraq, he is a co-sponsor on a bill with Rep. Conyers that would provide comprehensive healthcare to ALL Americans, and unlike CFR members Clinton, Biden, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd, Dennis Kucinich will repeal the so-called U.S. Patriot act which stripped us of our civil rights and civil liberties.

There is only one candidate who is willing to speak out while others remain silent. Please vote for Dennis Kucinich and make him the 44th President of the United States of America.

Susan L. Rapp VoteKucinich 2008! Peace (NOW)/Impeach Cheney

Posted by VoteKucinich at 08/16/2007 @ 8:40pm
I have MY principals.....LOL!

Posted by HAPPY

"It's principles, dumbass. You don't even know how to spell it.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/16/2007 @ 6:20pm"

And just how do you know Happy isn't a school superintendent?

Posted by FREIHEIT 08/16/2007 @ 8:40pm

Hahahahhha, double LOL! I spelled it right, as in "financial holdings--not interest"!

Posted by Happy at 08/16/2007 @ 10:21pm
Posted by VOTEKUCINICH 08/16/2007 @ 8:40pm

Oh, Lord...first a Lyndon LaRoucher, not a "Council On Foreign Relations'er"?

Geez, these guys are going to make RESE look like a moderate!

Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 10:34pm
First FrankGrits says:

Rep. Kucinich's likes to throw red meat to the far left in this country. He can afford to do that. While many points he makes may have some relevance to problem solving, he is usually too simplistic in his approach. Perhaps that is why he never gets anywhere. He doesn't seem to be a deep thinker. We can ill afford to have a President who doesn't think things through.

Then, FrankGrits turns around and gives an argument in favor of supporting Dennis Kucinich by saying:

On the subject of pre-emptively striking Iran, well I think the jury is in that this isn't a good idea. It wasn't thought through in the case of Iraq by the current occupant of the WH. If we attack one more country in the ME for less than reasons of self defense, we will deserve what we get.

Well, it looks like Obama and Clinton are having trouble "thinking things through" considering the fact that they both advocate pre-emptively invading Pakistan.

Dennis Kucinich on the other hand, has at least "thought things through" long enough to figure out "this isn't a good idea".

VoteKUCINICH 2008! Peace (NOW!)/IMPEACH CHENEY!

Posted by VoteKucinich at 08/17/2007 @ 01:14am
Who's the only one not actively seeking money from Ike's "miliatry/industrial complex?" Yes, I'll stand up and support Kucinich.

Pencil Warrior

Posted by bbadger at 08/17/2007 @ 02:11am
ONCE AGAIN - KUCINICH SPEAKS OUT!

Kucinich blasts Bush Administration for ‘setting the stage’ for war with Iran, turning spy satellites on U.S. citizens

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, August 16, 2007 DOVER, NH – Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich delivered a blistering attack on the Bush Administration today, charging that the White House is setting the stage for a war in Iran and, at the same time, using the "same mantra of terrorism to justify using military spy satellites and other high-tech military assets to put every citizen in our country under surveillance."

"Not only are they ramping up their attempts to lie and deceive this nation into another war, they are also using those lies and deceptions to justify creating a police state right here where everyone is under suspicion and everyone is secretly under surveillance from Big Brother in the sky," Kucinich charged.

Kucinich was responding to two separate reports since yesterday: one that the Bush Administration is planning to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, and the other that The Bush administration has approved a plan to expand domestic surveillance using spy satellites and aircraft sensors that can see through cloud cover and even penetrate buildings and underground bunkers. This kind of technology has been largely restricted to foreign surveillance.

By labeling the Revolutionary Guard – Iran’s military – as a terrorist organization, the Administration "is trying to deceive the American public into believing that it is in our national interest to prepare for war with Iran," Kucinich said.

"At the same time, they are, in effect, repealing the Constitution of the United States of America by turning military and foreign intelligence assets against our own citizens."

"These are people," Kucinich said, "who don’t understand what civil liberties are, what the Constitution represents, or what democracy is all about. What they are doing is despicably un-American and a violation of their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. Turning our own military assets against our own people is a flagrant violation of everything this nation stands for and a crime against our citizens." Kucinich said.

According to published reports, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security has approved the domestic use of data

obtained from satellite and aircraft sensors that can see through cloud cover and even penetrate buildings and underground bunkers.

"The Patriot Act itself, which I voted against, has already shredded sections of the Constitution and abridged Americans’ civil liberties with illegal search and seizure, warrantless wiretaps, and other rights’ violations without judicial or legislative oversight," Kucinich said. "Now, with this new domestic spying plan, every American can be under surveillance for any reason at any time of the day or night."

He also argued that a federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act, bars the military from engaging in law-enforcement activity inside the U.S. The satellites and other high-tech assets were predominantly built for and owned by the Defense Department.

Meanwhile, Kucinich, the only Presidential candidate who voted against the original Iraq war authorization measure in 2002, said the "terrorist" designation for the Revolutionary Guard "is nothing more than an attempt to deceive Americans into yet another war -- this time with Iran." He continued, "The Bush Administration is using this designation to convince the American public into accepting that a war with Iran is inevitable." He said the move "will set the stage for more chaos in the region because it undercuts all of our diplomatic efforts and provides further evidence to Iran’s leaders that the Bush Administration is rattling the saber for regime change."

Posted by VoteKucinich at 08/17/2007 @ 02:26am
..the Left and/or Democrats are going to "warrentlessly wire-tap" Karl Rove like a "Dick Cheney terrorist suspect"?

How will that play in the public....or on Fox News?...heheh

Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 8:01pm

Frita gets the straw dildo award for all her hard work, creating nothing, but straw dildos.

She ignores the salient point I make, being that-- no one will even know r0ve is being a target for surveillance because no one will be monitoring those monitoring r0ve... He's out of the inner circle and not a security risk to the US. I suppose r0ve could spend a bundle on people with the know-how to do just that for him, but without the additional unlimited routing retrieval access of the NSA/c, they'd never be able to locate the hack. And I never said who would be monitoring r0ve, but it very well might be Faux Noize as well as my next-door neighbor's genius hacker kid that does it for fun.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 02:47am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/17/2007 @ 02:47am

HSUB, do you really think you're making sense?

WHO is going to "track r0ve's conversations"? "Faux News"?!?! What for? They like the guy. "my hacker kid neighbor"? And do what with it? Anything he "uncovers" is inadmissible in court.

To get out of a hole...first stop digging.

Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 10:10am
Frita is such a dumbass sometimes-- she aparently uses too many straw dildos at the same time I suppose.

Ok anybody want to let Frita know what one does with embarrassing info?

Lets count the ways:

1. (I'll start off with the most obvious) Post it on the internets/u tube...

2.

3.

4.

5.

....

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 10:27am
To get out of a hole...first stop digging.

Posted by MASK

Heed your own advice. Voting for a corporate Dem is only digging deeper.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/17/2007 @ 10:36am
Good for both of you. And when president Guiliani or President Romney picks up where Dubya left off, don't come here and complain.

Posted by FRANKGRITS

I'll complain about the Dems because they left me with no other choice.

It's incredible, we live in a society that makes a fetish of choice in the marketplace. "Choice" is the rationale behind deregulation of all industries; yet we have only two parties to choose from when casting a ballot. Deregulate my utilities? Let's deregulate the market the Repubs and Dems have cornered.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/17/2007 @ 10:50am
When the US sheople turn into mistreated revenge filled pitbulls to their misperceived 'owners', then maybe we'll get a multitude of political party choices to pick from. But for the time being and in the future, it ultimately comes down to the person we choose as president with the most evidence of integrity, brains, experience, heart, ... no?

Thus my choice-- Al Gore.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 11:43am
"President Bush frequently has asked Congress -- and the American people -- to withhold judgment on his so-called troop surge in Iraq until Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, issue their progress report in September.

But according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Thursday, 53 percent of people polled said they suspect that the military assessment of the situation will try to make it sound better than it actually is. Forty-three percent said they do trust the report.

CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said he doesn't think the mistrust is directed at Petreaus as much as it is what he represents.

Holland said, "I suspect most people are hearing the words 'general' and 'Iraq' and that's what they're basing their opinion on."

He added, "It does seem to indicate that anyone associated with the Bush administration may be a less than credible messenger for the message that there is progress being made in Iraq."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/16/poll.iraq.report/index.html

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 12:25pm
"It's been a rough week for our ol' friends at Fox News. Thanks to some IP-address based research, the political world learned that the FNC was responsible for "touching up" Wikipedia pages, editing content that didn't fit with the partisan network's political agenda.

For example, embarrassing content from Media Matters about FNC personalities was quietly removed. Criticism of Keith Olbermann and Al Franken was accenuated. The network that specializes in on-air propoganda had taken its usual schtick to Wiki pages.

With that in mind, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Fox News' Chris Wallace -- you guessed it -- sought to undermine Wikipedia's credibility with a report tonight.

The irony is rich. Pay particular attention to the references to "self-serving agendas" and businesses desperate to "improve their public image."

Fox News tried to exploit Wikipedia, and got caught, so naturally it's time to undermine the source of the network's embarrassment. Typical."

http://tinyurl.com/2j659d

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 12:31pm
Yep, representing the new con supporters/servicers of dic'tator philosophy side is a lot of work, hard work, really hard work, lying all the time is hard work, really hard work...

Breaking: Rudy Spent 29 Hours At Ground Zero In Three Months

August 17, 2007 -- 8:24 AM EST // //

Twenty-nine hours.

The news is kind of buried in the Times piece, but it's big:

A complete record of Mr. Giuliani's exposure to the site is not available for the chaotic six days after the attack, when he was a frequent visitor. But an exhaustively detailed account from his mayoral archive, revised after the events to account for last-minute changes on scheduled stops, does exist for the period of Sept. 17 to Dec. 16, 2001. It shows he was there for a total of 29 hours in those three months, often for short periods or to visit locations adjacent to the rubble. In that same period, many rescue and recovery workers put in daily 12-hour shifts.

That's roughly an average of 10 hours a month. Ahhh -- the sweet sound of real reporting.

http://tinyurl.com/2ockaz

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 1:09pm
For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn

By RUSS BUETTNER

Published: August 17, 2007

As Rudolph W. Giuliani campaigns around the country highlighting his stewardship of New York City after the Sept. 11 attacks, he is widely hailed for bringing order to a traumatized city. But he has also raised the hackles of rescue and recovery workers by likening his experience to theirs.

On at least three occasions, in responding to accusations that the city failed to adequately protect the health of workers in the wreckage, he has boasted that he faced comparable risks himself. In one appearance he declared that he had been in the ruins "as often, if not more" than the cleanup workers who logged hundreds of hours in the smoldering pile.

Another time he brushed aside safety claims by asserting that his long hours at the site had left him susceptible to "every health consequence that people have suffered."

So, how much time did Mayor Giuliani spend at ground zero?

http://tinyurl.com/2mtjwe

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 1:12pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/17/2007 @ 01:49am

Good for both of you. And when president Guiliani or President Romney picks up where Dubya left off, don't come here and complain.

Frank, do you think it will be okay if I come here and complain when Hillary picks up where Dubya left off?

Posted by srjenkins at 08/17/2007 @ 1:20pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/17/2007 @ 10:36am

Curious Empty...do you think Al Gore is a "corporatist Dem"?

in ref to: Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/17/2007 @ 11:43am

Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 1:30pm
Frank, do you think it will be okay if I come here and complain when Hillary picks up where Dubya left off?

Posted by SRJENKINS 08/17/2007 @ 1:20pm

Frankly SRJ, I'd look forward to that. No relation other than this between you two, but if I see you and RIO BRAVO ...BOTH...complaining about Hillary, I'll have a pretty good feeling about it.

And can I add one more point about why "letting the Dems go down to defeat, so they're turn around and become more progressive" as a theory fails....at the present time atleast?

The Repubs have given us one of the WORST Congresses in recent memories....and possibly THE worst Presidency in our history...

which means if you and Empty and ZERO and FREEDOM and others "sit this one out" and let the Democrats lose in '08, it means you have REWARDED the Republicans for those two things.

The paradigm then becomes "See, even under the WORST Republican leadership, the people still want the GOP in the White House (possibily Congress)"...not "See, the Dems didn't run 'progressive' enough!"

Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 1:48pm
Oh Duh.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 2:06pm
Posted by MASK 08/17/2007 @ 1:48pm

Mask, I'm perfectly willing to give the Democrats my vote - if they earn it. Go to the right, I go elsewhere.

It's pretty easy to understand, and it is not my fault - anymore than it's my fault that a store goes out of business because they don't have what I want and I didn't shop there.

It's called having ideas. It's called trying to win me over because you think my vote matters. Can't be bothered - well, you take your chances, just don't go blaming me for the choices you make.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/17/2007 @ 2:22pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/17/2007 @ 10:36am

Curious Empty...do you think Al Gore is a "corporatist Dem"?

in ref to: Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/17/2007 @ 11:43am

Posted by MASK

I can remember him debating W way back when, and it was like he was fighting with his hands tied behind his back. Why? Because he could not bite the hands that feed him. Now, all these years later, he is more of an outsider, capable of speaking more openly, candidly; if he were to run a conventional campaign and amass the funds necessary to fight an opponent on the extremely expensive air waves of various media markets he would inevitably have to make compromises. Nonetheless, I would give serious thought to voting for him. He is a product of this dysfunctional political system, but I do not think he is an authoritarian, ideological, uncompromising type. (And I believe Gore would win if he chooses to throw his hat into the ring. Let's face it: Hillary alienated far too many for whatever reasons. And Obama? It's just not going to happen, not in 2007.)

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/17/2007 @ 3:27pm
The Repubs have given us one of the WORST Congresses in recent memories....and possibly THE worst Presidency in our history...

which means if you and Empty and ZERO and FREEDOM and others "sit this one out" and let the Democrats lose in '08, it means you have REWARDED the Republicans for those two things.

The paradigm then becomes "See, even under the WORST Republican leadership, the people still want the GOP in the White House (possibily Congress)"...not "See, the Dems didn't run 'progressive' enough!"

Posted by MASK

C'mon! These people understand what is happening; they are making choices. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Some of the national Dems may geniunely care about issues outside of the economic realm, but how many in the House, Senate, Executive are without the funds to do what the vast majority of us cannot? If abortions are outlawed, they can always leave the country or have a doctor here perform the procedure. Privacy issues? They are rich, well connected--they have nothing to fear. And so on. It's all about the money, and corporate America is getting exactly what it wants (and these Dems in the national government benefit financially).

It's not my fault if the Dems lose when I refuse to play in a rigged game.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/17/2007 @ 3:33pm
Mr. Kucinich is probably the only politician whose 'blind trust' isn't heavily invested in defense stocks. Thank you for your perpetual honesty, Mr. K!!!

Posted by Mair at 08/17/2007 @ 3:43pm
CONGRESMAN kUCHINICH IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO DID NOT VOTE FOR THE WAR AUTHORIZATION IN CONGRESS; WILL GET US OUT OF IRAQ AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER HE TAKES OFFICE; WILL NOT USE THE THREAT OF WAR AS A FOREIGN POLICY TOOL; SUPPORTS GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. HE SHOULD BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT, UNFORTUNATELY HE WILL NOT GET THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION. HE SHOULD RUN AS AN INDEPENDANT CANDIDATE. "UNITY08"IS SEARCHING FOR AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE, CONTACT THEM AND RECOMMEND CONGRESMAN KUCHINICH. JOHN RUDDEN

Posted by Rudden at 08/17/2007 @ 3:46pm
It's pretty easy to understand, and it is not my fault -

Posted by SRJENKINS 08/17/2007 @ 2:22pm

It's not my fault if the Dems lose when I refuse to play in a rigged game.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/17/2007 @ 3:33pm

It's not my fault!!!!

RALPH NADER (several times over the last 6 1/2 years)

Yeah, guys we got it. It's not your fault. It's the fault of the Democrats for not being four-square in the Left, ignoring the Repub election victories, AND the polls, and embracing 1/3 maybe HALF (generosity is my fault) of their voters and throwing the rest to the Republicans (you guys DO know there are Democrats, not just in the leadership, who aren't "pure progressives" such as yourself....what happens to THEIR viewpoint if the Dems have to "earn your vote"???? Oh, that's right, it's about satisfying the liberal base...my bad).

So....come November 2008, you get to stay pure and "fautless"....the Repubs get to keep winning and claiming that "theirs is the way...look at the elections"....and the Democrats keep SEEING the Repubs win and move EVEN MORE to the Right because the message they're getting is...."The Right wins...the Center loses!"

Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 3:55pm
Posted by RUDDEN 08/17/2007 @ 3:46pm

Does everybody realize there's a good likelihood that, rather than being a "progressive" ideologue, that someone LIKE RUDDEN (not throwing any direct accusations ...yet)....is the REAL "Republican operative working the liberal blogs"?

Spin off Kucinich into a Independent/3rd Party run....and unbelievably we'll have a Republican President.

And either the ideologue won't care ("Need to show the Dems they need to come back to their base, screw the Middle!")....

or the operative will smile (like his Boss who just left the White House).

Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 3:59pm
Posted by MASK

Here's an idea: Why don't people like you get involved in the Repub party (if you aren't already) and moderate them? The Dems are right of the center and it doesn't look as if they're gonna go anywhere.

I'm not going to play the worse of two evils games anymore. I no you don't understand this, but sometimes you have to make sacrifises inorder to get the changes you desire. It's not easy, it can be painful, but it is well worth the effort. Discipline and patience are required.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/17/2007 @ 4:02pm
Besides, what does the Democratic Party win if it loses its historic principles as the Party of working people and the downtrodden? Nothing more than the right to take marching orders from its corporate paymasters.

(http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Nader_DLC.htm)

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/17/2007 @ 4:07pm
Just posted this on the other one:

Wonder when they're going to do another one like this where it compares poll with Al in it versus when he's not. That way when he announces he's in the race we can go back and see what the dif is between declaring or not declaring as far as how the poll numbers adjust/people switch.

The Field Poll. 3/26/2007 California

Hillary Clinton _____41%

Barack Obama ____28%

John Edwards _____13%

Bill Richardson______4%

Joe Biden__________3%

Dennis Kucinich_____2%

Unsure____________9%

__________-----------VS--------__________

The Field Poll. 3/26/2007 California

Hillary Clinton ______31%

Al Gore ___________25%

Barack Obama _____21%

John Edwards _______8%

Bill Richardson ______3%

Joe Biden __________2%

Dennis Kucinich _____1%

Unsure ____________9%

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/17/2007 @ 4:43pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 4:45pm
Empty, you just said "Nonetheless, I would give serious thought to voting for him."---Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/17/2007 @ 3:27pm

In reference to a man who debated FOR NAFTA against Ross Perot....supported the Clinton Administration without hesitation....and has had more versions of himself than "Windows".

Yet Hillary is unacceptable to you?!?!??!?!

BTW, this was "Al Gore 1.0" from the early 80s-

"It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong. I hope that some day we will see the current outrageously large number of abortions drop sharply. . . . Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected . . ." (Letter from Rep. Al Gore to a Constituent, 7/18/84)

Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 4:57pm
Al also mentioned:

Bush's "strict constuctionism" is like slavery's 3/5ths rule. (Nov 2000)

Ban partial-birth abortions, except for maternal health. (Oct 2000)

No litmus test; but appointees would uphold Roe v. Wade. (Oct 2000)

Opposes partial birth abortion, but opposes banning it. (Sep 2000)

Would support RU-486, if proven safe. (Sep 2000)

Next president's Supreme Court nominees will decide abortion. (Jun 2000)

Two questions: Is abortion acceptable? Who should decide? (Mar 2000)

Right to choice, regardless of economic circumstance. (Mar 2000)

Personal struggle on abortion reflected in evolving view. (Feb 2000)

Abortion question is for women, not government or president. (Jan 2000)

Wrote in 1984 that "abortion is arguably taking a life". (Jan 2000)

Voted against Medicare-funded abortions; but now supports it. (Jan 2000)

Always, always defend a woman's right to choose. (Jun 1999)

Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. (Nov 1998)

Supports Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances law. (Nov 1998)

More family planning; less parental consent. (Nov 1998)

http://tinyurl.com/2pn7uv

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 5:04pm
Posted by MASK 08/17/2007 @ 3:55pm

See my comments on the other thread why I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. But you know this - we just keep circling the same point.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/17/2007 @ 5:06pm
"It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong. I hope that some day we will see the current outrageously large number of abortions drop sharply. . . . Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected . . ." (Letter from Rep. Al Gore to a Constituent, 7/18/84)

Posted by MASK

I agree with that statement. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I believe in a woman's right to choose; I do not believe I should be able to tell a woman she cannot abort a pregnancy.

I said I would "consider"--seriously--voting for Gore. I have considered Hillary and find her undeserving of my vote.

It's true, I'm projecting this "outsider" persona of Gore's as he currently exist. I'm a dreamer, but I'm not a damn moonbeam.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/17/2007 @ 5:20pm
Besides, what does the Democratic Party win if it loses its historic principles as the Party of working people and the downtrodden? Nothing more than the right to take marching orders from its corporate paymasters.

(http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Nader_DLC.htm)

The great market economy of the world and we have only two choices when we vote? That fact right there reveals the hypocrisy of our system, the fallacy of it all. Inconsistencies in logic, practise reveal fallacies.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/17/2007 @ 5:22pm
Q: Would you pursue a hemispheric trade deal extending the benefits of NAFTA to Central and South America and the Caribbean?

A: I am committed to enhancing our alliance and expanding trade with the countries of Latin America. Trade has been an important part of our economic expansion and creates high-paying jobs. As president, I will build on the work that the administration began when the U.S. hosted the first Summit of the Americas to promote hemispheric cooperation on a full spectrum of political, economic, security, and social issues. As we expand our trade agreements, we can achieve more based on what we have learned in the past seven years. I will insist that labor and environmental protections are included as part of future trade agreements.

Debate with Perot was instrumental in passing NAFTA

In the fall of 1993 the White House faced heavy opposition to NAFTA from labor and House Democrats. The opposition said the accord would accelerate the exodus of high-paying manufacturing jobs across the border. That point was made most vividly by Ross Perot, who predicted that it would produce a "giant sucking sound" made by the companies headed for Mexico. [In preparing for the televised debate with Perot, Gore] spotted a magazine photograph of the protectionist authors of the 1930 Smoots-Hawley tariff act, widely believed to have worsened the Depression, and during the debate Gore presented it to an irritated Perot. Gore also asked Perot about the free trade zone operated by Perot's son at his Texas airport, which was promoted as a gateway to business in Mexico. "If it's good enough for him, why isn't it good enough for the rest of the country?" Gore asked. Gore's strong performance and Perot's meltdown changed the dynamic of the NAFTA debate. The pact passed the House 234-200.

http://tinyurl.com/33rsru

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 5:22pm
Of course we should have Dennis as president but there are a couple of problems to bear in mind. The first is that the whole goddamned Congress would work against him like it did when Carter was in the White House and the second problem is that we have to vote on electronic voting machines that are controlled by republicans so there's no way in hell to get him to the WH. The entire military/industrial/congressional complex wants one of theirs and that's more than enough to assure it will never happen.

Posted by Jimsteeves at 08/17/2007 @ 5:34pm
The "front runners" may get a surprise in the primaries- and the general election. I'm over the 'Top Tier'- same old song & dance. Dennis has made the right calls- esp in regards to Iraq. He may look like a Leprachun- but hell I'm Irish. He's the only one who doesn't seem to be blowing smoke up my ass and has good intentions for the nation- not just himself. "Power to the People". GO SEABISCUIT GO !!!!!!!!!

Posted by Kimmy B at 08/17/2007 @ 5:46pm
"I agree with that statement."----Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/17/2007 @ 5:20pm

You AGREE with this, but are "pro-choice"?!?!?

"Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected . . ." (Letter from Rep. Al Gore to a Constituent, 7/18/84)

Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 8:24pm
Gore's strong performance and Perot's meltdown changed the dynamic of the NAFTA debate. The pact passed the House 234-200. ----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/17/2007 @ 5:22pm

Just so we're clear, HSUB. You're PRAISING Gore for his part in passing NAFTA, right?

Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 8:25pm
Kucinich is the only candidate who routinely gives clear, candid, workable answers to questions and problems we all face. He is also the candidate who recently married an English glamor girl half his age and a full head taller, next to whom he looks ridiculous. She's an obvious Princess-Di wannabe, without Di's common touch and popular appeal, and a laughable addition to this political season. Dennis shows the arrogance of someone alone on the moral high ground, for instance a snotty indifference ("I'm too good for all that") to his personal appeal, or lack of it: oily hair in its Hitler style, frequent video and photo ops with his vastly taller, vastly younger bride and a cranky dismissal of any mention of the need to "look presidential" as well as be that way. It's too bad. He should be the dream candidate for the truly enlightened voter, but instead he's a joke--and not a funny one.

Posted by mitchc at 08/17/2007 @ 9:06pm
Posted by MITCHC 08/17/2007 @ 9:06pm

MITCH, I don't think it's fair or right to criticize Rep. Kucinich for either his appearance or his younger, good-looking wife....

after all, that's what the LEFT has been doing to Fred Thompson, and that's not right either.

Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 10:50pm
Dennis Kucinich has had it right, all along. Americans agree with him, but sadly, most don't know it. I agree with earlier comments. This is serious. We can get this turned around by supporting D.K. Otherwise, we will be stuck with this deadly mess for years. Even if he doesn't get the nomination, his message will have to be carried forward. Especially if We, the People, "Make it So".

Posted by rickm512 at 08/18/2007 @ 01:49am
"Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected . . ." (Letter from Rep. Al Gore to a Constituent, 7/18/84)

Posted by MASK 08/17/2007 @ 8:24pm

Frita, I could understand bringing up something from 5-10 years ago, but almost a quarter centery ago!?!? Wow Frita is really got a knot in those panties now. And i do believe I've heard Al speak to his change of attitude and believe in women's rights and abortion as well as in smoking and guns, from when he was a lot younger. One could say Al believes in evolution. How about you Frita?

BTW, Al also mentioned:

Bush's "strict constuctionism" is like slavery's 3/5ths rule. (Nov 2000)

Ban partial-birth abortions, except for maternal health. (Oct 2000)

No litmus test; but appointees would uphold Roe v. Wade. (Oct 2000)

Opposes partial birth abortion, but opposes banning it. (Sep 2000)

Would support RU-486, if proven safe. (Sep 2000)

Next president's Supreme Court nominees will decide abortion. (Jun 2000)

Two questions: Is abortion acceptable? Who should decide? (Mar 2000)

Right to choice, regardless of economic circumstance. (Mar 2000)

Personal struggle on abortion reflected in evolving view. (Feb 2000)

Abortion question is for women, not government or president. (Jan 2000)

Wrote in 1984 that "abortion is arguably taking a life". (Jan 2000)

Voted against Medicare-funded abortions; but now supports it. (Jan 2000)

Always, always defend a woman's right to choose. (Jun 1999)

Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. (Nov 1998)

Supports Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances law. (Nov 1998)

More family planning; less parental consent. (Nov 1998)

http://tinyurl.com/2pn7uv

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2007 @ 10:01am
Gore's strong performance and Perot's meltdown changed the dynamic of the NAFTA debate. The pact passed the House 234-200. ----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/17/2007 @ 5:22pm

Just so we're clear, HSUB. You're PRAISING Gore for his part in passing NAFTA, right?

Posted by MASK 08/17/2007 @ 8:25pm

Frta is good at cutting out what she doesn't want to see like the rest of the post:

Q: Would you pursue a hemispheric trade deal extending the benefits of NAFTA to Central and South America and the Caribbean?

A: I am committed to enhancing our alliance and expanding trade with the countries of Latin America. Trade has been an important part of our economic expansion and creates high-paying jobs. As president, I will build on the work that the administration began when the U.S. hosted the first Summit of the Americas to promote hemispheric cooperation on a full spectrum of political, economic, security, and social issues. As we expand our trade agreements, we can achieve more based on what we have learned in the past seven years. I will insist that labor and environmental protections are included as part of future trade agreements.

Debate with Perot was instrumental in passing NAFTA

In the fall of 1993 the White House faced heavy opposition to NAFTA from labor and House Democrats. The opposition said the accord would accelerate the exodus of high-paying manufacturing jobs across the border. That point was made most vividly by Ross Perot, who predicted that it would produce a "giant sucking sound" made by the companies headed for Mexico. [In preparing for the televised debate with Perot, Gore] spotted a magazine photograph of the protectionist authors of the 1930 Smoots-Hawley tariff act, widely believed to have worsened the Depression, and during the debate Gore presented it to an irritated Perot. Gore also asked Perot about the free trade zone operated by Perot's son at his Texas airport, which was promoted as a gateway to business in Mexico. "If it's good enough for him, why isn't it good enough for the rest of the country?" Gore asked. Gore's strong performance and Perot's meltdown changed the dynamic of the NAFTA debate. The pact passed the House 234-200.

http://tinyurl.com/33rsru

Yeah, who woulda thought hsuB/cHeney admin would come in and make it even worse and not better?

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2007 @ 10:06am
Last Updated: Thursday, 16 August 2007, 15:44 GMT 16:44 UK

No buyer for voting machine unit

US cash dispenser and security company Diebold has admitted that it has failed to find a buyer for its troubled electronic voting machine business.

Diebold and other manufacturers of such voting machines have been hit by criticism that they are unreliable and vulnerable to tampering.

Growing unease about the machines in the US has led to a number of delayed orders from states.

Diebold said that as a result, its 2007 revenues would fall $120m (£61m).

It added that it would now allow the unit to operate more independently, with a separate board of directors and, possibly, a new management structure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6950024.stm

Yeah, sounds like a 'surge'/new general nonsolution to sell the same old vote manipulation. Not going to happen.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2007 @ 10:07am
"As we expand our trade agreements, we can achieve more based on what we have learned in the past seven years. I will insist that labor and environmental protections are included as part of future trade agreements."----Al Gore

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/18/2007 @ 10:06am

NAFTA came into effect January 1994....between 1995 and 2000....

did he?

Posted by Mask at 08/18/2007 @ 1:24pm
Was he president or VP?

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2007 @ 3:12pm
Was he president or VP?

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/18/2007 @ 3:12pm

So Gore was helpless as Vice-President?

(the hole gets deeper)

Posted by Mask at 08/18/2007 @ 8:48pm
Actually Frita, Al was considered the most powerful VP before cHeney. However a better point is what I'm starting to see a lot more of these type of arguments:

"Gore noted in Singapore that "there is no single candidate that is putting forward a comprehensive argument about the environment or making climate change a priority" in the current presidential race. It was 103 in Atlanta today, the second hottest day on record. The first tornado ever touched down in New York as part of the same heatwave. Gore knows he is the only one who will make the climate crisis a core part of a presidential campaign. He also knows that he was right on the Iraq war when his own party was wrong, that he has served more time in political office at the federal level than Clinton (7 years), Edwards (6 years) and Obama (3 years) combined. And he knows that he has the opportunity to become the greatest U.S. president since Kennedy, maybe FDR. The country is ready for real social change after the political stagnation of the Reagan and post-Reagan years. As Bob Dylan says, "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

http://tinyurl.com/2hn228

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2007 @ 5:16pm
Some others:

Democratic Polls EPIC/MRA for The Detroit News WXYZ TV 8/11/2007 Michigan

Al Gore________36%

Hillary Clinton ____32%

Barack Obama ___16%

John Edwards _____8%

Joe Biden ________1%

Bill Richardson ____1%

Dennis Kucinich ___1%

_________--------VS-------_________

EPIC/MRA for The Detroit News WXYZ TV 8/11/2007 Michigan

Hillary Clinton ____45%

Barack Obama ___26%

John Edwards ____16%

Joe Biden ________3%

Bill Richardson ____2%

Dennis Kucinich ___2%

Unsure __________6%

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/michigan.html

http://tinyurl.com/395fou

http://www.gore-obama2008.blogspot.com/

http://www.truthandprogress.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=475

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/8/1612/01549

http://modernvedicastrology.com/node/163

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/8/11/01930/2689

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868252/posts

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/8/162130/9263

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2007 @ 6:02pm
I got a kick out of:

Gore knows he is the only one who will make the climate crisis a core part of a presidential campaign. He also knows that he was right on the Iraq war when his own party was wrong, that he has served more time in political office at the federal level than Clinton (7 years), Edwards (6 years) and Obama (3 years) combined. And he knows that he has the opportunity to become the greatest U.S. president since Kennedy, maybe FDR.

Here's hoping that he indeed does know that.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2007 @ 6:07pm
Actually Frita, Al was considered the most powerful VP before cHeney. ----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/19/2007 @ 5:16pm

Yet totally helpless when it came to NAFTA?!?!?!?

Was he president or VP? ----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/18/2007 @ 3:12pm

Posted by Mask at 08/19/2007 @ 8:02pm
Frita likes to make them straw dildos of her's so small. Well there were four presidents to one VP back then:

Clinton: "It's an honor for me today to be joined by my predecessor, President Bush, who took the major steps in negotiating this North American Free Trade Agreement; President Jimmy Carter, whose vision of hemispherical development gives great energy to our efforts and has been a consistent theme of his for many, many years now; and President Ford who has argued as fiercely for expanded trade and for this agreement as any American citizen and whose counsel I continue to value."

But it was meant to work a little different than it was first billed:

Clinton: "We will make our case as hard and as well as we can. And, though the fight will be difficult, I deeply believe we will win. And I'd like to tell you why. First of all, because NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement.

In a fundamental sense, this debate about NAFTA is a debate about whether we will embrace these changes and create the jobs of tomorrow, or try to resist these changes, hoping we can preserve the economic structures of yesterday.

I tell you, my fellow Americans, that if we learn anything from the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the governments in Eastern Europe, even a totally controlled society cannot resist the winds of change that economics and technology and information flow have imposed in this world of ours. That is not an option. Our only realistic option is to embrace these changes and create the jobs of tomorrow. (Applause.)

I believe that NAFTA will create 200,000 American jobs in the first two years of its effect. I believe if you look at the trends -- and President Bush and I were talking about it this morning -- starting about the time he was elected president, over one-third of our economic growth, and in some years over one-half of our net new jobs came directly from exports. And on average, those export-related jobs paid much higher than jobs that had no connection to exports.

...

I believe that NAFTA will create a million jobs in the first five years of its impact. And I believe that that is many more jobs than will be lost, as inevitably some will be as always happens when you open up the mix to a new range of competition.

...

Many Americans are still worried that this agreement will move jobs south of the border because they've seen jobs move south of the border and because they know that there are still great differences in the wage rates. There have been 19 serious economic studies of NAFTA by liberals and conservatives alike; 18 of them have concluded that there will be no job loss."

But this sounds a little like Al:

Clinton: "In a few moments, I will sign side agreements to NAFTA that will make it harder than it is today for businesses to relocate solely because of very low wages or lax environmental rules. These side agreements will make a difference. The environmental agreement will, for the first time ever, apply trade sanctions against any of the countries that fails to enforce its own environmental laws. I might say to those who say that's giving up of our sovereignty, for people who have been asking us to ask that of Mexico, how do we have the right to ask that of Mexico if we don't demand it of ourselves? It's nothing but fair.

This is the first time that there have ever been trade sanctions in the environmental law area. This ground-breaking agreement is one of the reasons why major environmental groups, ranging from the Audubon Society to the Natural Resources Defense Council, are supporting NAFTA. ...

Together, the efforts of two administrations now have created a trade agreement that moves beyond the traditional notions of free trade, seeking to ensure trade that pulls everybody up instead of dragging some down while others go up. We have put the environment at the center of this in future agreements. We have sought to avoid a debilitating contest for business where countries seek to lure them only by slashing wages or despoiling the environment."

Well ok, five presidents against one VP:

Bush I: "And I certainly salute former Presidents Carter and Ford for their speaking out so strongly. My predecessor, Ronald Reagan had a beautiful piece, op-ed piece in the paper the other day spelling out why we must pass this. So it is a bipartisan agreement. You heard an eloquent statement by the President about jobs, and let me just say a word on another facet of this, which he also touched on."

Er, he's not talking about the current hsuB, but he does remind us how things have gotten so much more worse with this hsuB pres:

Carter: "Since I left the White House, which is a long time ago, we've spent a lot of time in Latin America. The Carter Center has special programs, one of which is to promote democracy. With my good friend, Gerald Ford, we went to Panama to try to bring both peace and democracy to that country. It finally came with the help of George Bush. We went into Nicaragua to try to hold an honest election and to replace a communist regime. We went to Haiti and to the Dominican Republic and, later on, to Guyana, and just recently to Paraguay. And just this month they've inaugurated a democratically-elected civilian to be the President of Paraguay.

The point is that there is a wave of democracy brought about by the strong U.S. human rights policy that is indeed inspirational to us and is very beneficial to those of us who live in the United States.

We haven't made any progress on Cuba. And Mexico has a long way to go to have a truly honest democratic election. But I think the single most important factor that will democracy and honest elections to our next-door neighbor is to have NAFTA approved and implemented. If this is done, then I believe that we will have rich dividends for our own country.

...

One of those time was when I feared that he might make a public statement denouncing the North American Free Trade Agreement. And he said, okay, I will be for it, but with provisos. We've got to do something about labor, to protect the working people of our country, and we've got to do something about the environment. That has now been done. The side agreements have alleviated the serious questions that did arise about NAFTA. That's been done."

And like I said the debate was different:

Ford: "One of those time was when I feared that he might make a public statement denouncing the North American Free Trade Agreement. And he said, okay, I will be for it, but with provisos. We've got to do something about labor, to protect the working people of our country, and we've got to do something about the environment. That has now been done. The side agreements have alleviated the serious questions that did arise about NAFTA. That's been done."

You should read the whole thing:

http://www.multied.com/Documents/Clinton/SigningNaFTA.html

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2007 @ 03:22am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/20/2007 @ 03:22am |

It's the classic conundrum, HSUB. You want Al Gore to be "the most powerful Veep until Cheney" and a "fighter for all Americans"....but then have to blame NAFTA (a treaty loathed by the Left and labor) on Clinton, despite Gore being "point man" on it with his debate against Perot.

and then claim that poor Al was helpless on NAFTA.

So which is it? "Powerful Veep" or "helpless pawn to his Boss Bill"?

And by the way...he's not going to run in 2008....Kristen Gore said so, and (oddly) knows Al better than YOU do....heheh

Posted by Mask at 08/20/2007 @ 10:00am
It's the classic conundrum, HSUB. You want Al Gore to be "the most powerful Veep until Cheney" and a "fighter for all Americans"

(It's not only me saying it look it up-- lots of articles about Al Gore being the most powerful VP, it's a trend for VP's to take on more.)

and then claim that poor Al was helpless on NAFTA.

(Frita's ignoring all the facts I posted inorder to play with her dildos...)

And by the way...he's not going to run in 2008....Kristen Gore said so, and (oddly) knows Al better than YOU do...

(Only Al will decide whether he'll run or not and I say he decides to run by October same as I've said for a year or longer like I said hsuB would not finish his term-- impeachment will happen.)

Posted by MASK 08/20/2007 @ 10:00am

Frita has lost her mind 'playing' with all her own straw dildos continuously and no longer makes sense and/or is being totally disengenuous and/or 'really' is that stupid.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2007 @ 11:00am
Another reason NAFTA may not be working all that great may simply be the reason most things aren't working that well these days-- hsuB/cHeney admin:

"While the president tells us how the economy is ‘thriving,' the American people understand how wrong he is," Sanders added. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, he noted, found that more than two-thirds of Americans believe the U.S. economy is either in recession now or will be in the next year.

Since the president took office, Sanders added, 5.4 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty; nearly seven million Americans have lost their health insurance; median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300; three million manufacturing jobs have been lost; the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5 percent; entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by 3.3 percent and 4.9 percent, respectively; and three million American workers have lost their pensions.

Home foreclosures are now the highest on record; the personal savings rate is lower than at any time since before the Great Depression; wages and salaries are at the lowest share of gross domestic product since 1929; and the top 300,000 Americans now earn nearly as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans combined.

A member of the Senate Budget Committee, Sanders has cited the president's disconnect with economic reality in opposing confirmation of former Rep. Jim Nussle to be the White House budget director. The Senate has scheduled three hours of debate on the Nussle nomination as the first order of business when Congress reconvenes on September 4.

At the Treasury Department meeting, Bush touted his management of the economy and made false claims about the how Congress has handled the budget. The fact is under President Bush, job growth has been far below historic standards, unemployment has been higher than when he took office and workers are being squeezed as wages have not kept up with costs. Bush also has turned record surpluses into record deficits, increasing debt by $3 trillion and allowing runaway spending.

Here is more from the Joint Economic Committee:

Middle Class Squeeze

Real Earnings Growth Since 2000 Has Been Much Weaker And More Unequal Compared With The Late 1990s. The typical worker's real (inflation-adjusted) weekly earnings fell by 0.4 percent between 2000 and 2006, compared with a gain of 7.2 percent between 1994 and 2000. Moreover, while it was weak overall, earnings growth between 2000 and 2006 was faster for those in the upper half of the income distribution than it was for those in the lower half, and earnings for those at the very bottom declined. In contrast, growth during the second half of the 1990s was uniformly strong across the wage distribution.

Real Household Income Has Declined For All Income Groups Since 2000. After adjusting for inflation, the income of a typical household fell by almost $1,300, or 2.7 percent, between 2000 and 2005, the latest year for which we have data. Households in the poorest fifth of the income distribution have experienced the greatest declines (7.5 percent), while those at the top experienced the smallest declines (1.0 percent).

Despite Strong Productivity Gains, Real Hourly Compensation Growth is Lagging. Historically, economy-wide increases in workers' pay have tended to track economy-wide increases in productivity (output per hour). However, while productivity in the nonfarm business sector rose by 17.8 percent between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of 2007, real (inflation-adjusted) average hourly compensation (wages plus benefits) increased by only 9.8 percent over the same period.

Explosive Health Care Costs Are Squeezing Family Incomes. Between 2005 and 2006, health insurance premiums rose at more than twice the rate of workers' earnings. Between 2000 and 2006, the average monthly premium paid by workers with health coverage rose 57 percent.

Rising Energy Costs Are Eating Into Families' Budgets. The price of gasoline has more than doubled since July 2001, when the average gallon of regular grade gas cost $1.42. Six years later, in July 2007, that same gallon of gasoline cost $2.97, reaching a high of $3.22 the week of May 21.

College Tuition Growth Continues To Outpace Inflation. Over the past several years, tuition has risen at more than double the rate of inflation. Between the 2000-01 and 2005-06 academic years, average public college tuition and fees increased by 40 percent--the fastest rate of growth over any five-year period since the 1970s. Nearly two-thirds of college students graduate with debt, with the typical debt load approaching $20,000.

Jobs and Unemployment

President Bush Is Tied for the Worst Jobs Creation Record of Any President in the Past 70 years. President Bush is in a statistical dead heat with his father for the worst job creation record of any President since Herbert Hoover, with just 5.7 million more total jobs (nonfarm private sector and government payrolls) than there were when he took office in January 2001. That is a paltry job creation pace of just 72,000 total jobs per month.

Manufacturing Payrolls Have Declined By Over 3 Million Jobs Since President Bush Took Office. Manufacturing has been particularly hard hit, with payrolls declining by over 3.1 million jobs between January 2001 and July 2007.

Unemployment Rate Remains Higher than When President Bush Took Office. July's unemployment rate of 4.6 percent, though down from its peak of 6.3 percent in June 2003, is higher than the historic lows achieved in the late 1990s.

Long-term Unemployment Remains High. The number of people unemployed for more than 26 weeks is 93 percent higher than it was when President Bush took office. In July 2007, nearly one in five of the unemployed (18.4 percent) has been unemployed for more than 26 weeks.

Economic Growth

The Current Economic Expansion is the Slowest of the Postwar Period. In the 25 quarters since the first quarter of 2001, the overall economy has grown at a 2.5 percent average annual rate. That is the slowest growth of any expansion in the postwar period. While the economy grew at a 3.4 percent annual rate in the second quarter of this year, that was largely a rebound from its anemic 0.6 advance in the first quarter.

Sub-Par Growth Expected to Continue Through This Year and Next. Leading economic forecasters expect economic growth to slow from its second-quarter pace in the current and coming quarters. The Federal Reserve, for example, believes it likely that economic growth will be less than 3 percent in the second half of this year and continue to lag through the first half of next year.

Debt and Deficits

The Budget Would Be In Surplus If Not for the Deficit-Financed Bush Tax Cuts. The CBO's recent analysis confirms that without the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), the budget would be in surplus this year. That holds even when accounting for any "dynamic" effects of the tax cuts on the economy, which the CBO says "have largely dissipated by now" and are "probably small." The CBO estimates that the cost of the tax cuts in 2007 alone, including debt service, is $211 billion, and even with "dynamic" offset is at least $195 billion. (The CBO's latest projection of the 2007 deficit – to be updated later this month – is $177 billion.)

Low National Saving Is Partly Responsible For A Weak Economy. The weakness in the economy in large part stems from the lack of adequate national saving. Experts have testified at recent hearings that the decline in national saving since 2001 has been driven in large part by the record budget deficits. A projected $5.6 trillion budget surplus has turned into a $2.4 trillion deficit – a dramatic $8.0 trillion deterioration. The dependence of economic growth on national saving, and of national saving on public saving, is one of the most important reasons why deficits do matter.

The Joint Economic Committee, established under the Employment Act of 1946, was created by Congress to review economic conditions and to analyze the effectiveness of economic policy.

http://tinyurl.com/36l2bb

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2007 @ 3:21pm
(Only Al will decide whether he'll run or not and I say he decides to run by October same as I've said for a year or longer like I said hsuB would not finish his term-- impeachment will happen.)

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/20/2007 @ 11:00am

....2 and 1/2 months to go.

Posted by Mask at 08/21/2007 @ 08:59am
Yep.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2007 @ 12:32pm
Yep.

Posted by Mask at 08/22/2007 @ 3:32pm

About the Authors

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)
Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)
Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)
Cora Currier (Posts | Bio)
John Nichols (Posts | Bio)
Katrina vanden Heuvel (Posts | Bio)
Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)
Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)
Max Blumenthal (Posts | Bio)
Tom Engelhardt (Posts | Bio)
Victor Navasky (Posts | Bio)

Kucinich Sounds the Alarm

posted by John Nichols on 08/16/2007 @ 12:53am

About the Authors

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Cora Currier (Posts | Bio)

John Nichols (Posts | Bio)

Katrina vanden Heuvel (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Max Blumenthal (Posts | Bio)

Tom Engelhardt (Posts | Bio)

Victor Navasky (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

Kucinich Sounds the Alarm

posted by John Nichols on 08/16/2007 @ 12:53am

Share this article

About the Authors

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Cora Currier (Posts | Bio)

John Nichols (Posts | Bio)

Katrina vanden Heuvel (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Max Blumenthal (Posts | Bio)

Tom Engelhardt (Posts | Bio)

Victor Navasky (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!