this is priceless, or maybe Payless...

I'm not going to insult you by including the now (in)famous shoe tossing video. It's been played to death and the clueless smile on the Tsar's face when it was happening was priceless.

BUT, Rude Pundit has a great idea as a followthrow...

This morning, the Rude Pundit decided to honor the efforts of Muntader al-Zaidi, the Iraqi shoe-tosser, by taking out a raggedy old pair of sneakers, putting them in a Priority Mail shipping box, helpfully provided by the United States Post Office, and shipping them to President George W. Bush at the White House. He included a note that read, "This is a farewell kiss from the American people, you dog."

Now there have been many actions suggested over the years on sending messages to the current regime in Washington, but this is not only unique it could possibly help some homeless people in the D.C. area, if the White House realizes that they could do something good for the first, errrr last, weeks in office!

you can get all of the information at the link to Rude Pundit.

thanks to Crooks and Liars for the heads-up...

could this be the dreaded "October Surprise" the Republicans are known for?

McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam In Lobbying Effort

William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.

The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.

Murray Waas, Huffington Post, 2:49 pm EDT, 10/14/08

if it is, i think they got it wrong this time...

read the entire story at Huffpost.

Senate passes GI Bill...

75 - 22 with half of the 49 Republicans thumbing their noses at Mssrs. Bush, McCain and Cornyn. It now will go to the House for approval as part of the large War Funding bill.

Though the bill is veto proof in the Senate, Mr. Bush has promised to veto it with the extra funding for servicemembers because he believes it's too much money and will cause members to leave the service after only one tour of duty, which most do anyway.

(The Politico) The Senate has overwhelmingly passed a new GI bill and billions in new domestic spending as part of the $165 billion Iraq war funding bill pending before Congress.

In two subsequent votes, the Senate passed the war funding portion of the bill, 70-26, and rejected an amendment that contained troop withdrawal language on a 34-63 vote.

The 75-22 vote on the GI bill and domestic spending marked a resounding victory for Senate Democrats as well as Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who has battled to expand the educational benefits for soldiers who served in Iraq. The measure also included a 13 week extension of unemployment insurance, home heating assistance and other domestic spending add ons. President Bush has threatened to veto the bill, which will top $200 billion with the extra spending.
Politico via CBSNews

It's a step in the right direction. Now we only have to see if the House will pass it and the entire Congress will have the cajones to stand up to the nitwit Tsar George. The one thing going for this is that it is election year and the Repubs are really afraid with the last few Congressional elections they've lost.

Congratulations to VoteVets.org, WesPac, and others who have been fighting for Senator Webb's bill.

Senator Cornyn's office responds to VoteVets.org ads...

huh?

WASHINGTON - Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan today expressed disappointment that Senator John Cornyn would belittle them and their service, because they asked him to vote in favor of a bi-partisan GI Bill for the 21st Century. That bill, offered by Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel, would update the Montgomery GI Bill to keep education benefits for troops current with the cost of education.

In today's edition of Roll Call, Cornyn's spokesman responded to an ad launched by VoteVets.org calling on Cornyn to vote for a new GI Bill by saying, "The anti-war crowd is determined to use our men and women in uniform for their political advantage, even if our national security is jeopardized in the process."

News from VoteVets.org

ummm, VoteVets is an organization founded and basically supported by veterans. There are then the rest of us, who in turn, totally support them for the service they have provided even if they did not agree with it.

That makes them anti-war crowd? Does the senator remember that we have an ALL volunteer services. Everyone who serves does so at his/her choice?

The bill that Senators McCain and Cornyn want passed would limit the annual tuition benefit capped at $2,000.

Tuition for ONE three-hour class at Northern Illinois University for an in-state student this spring is $681.00! That is close to half of the total benefit the good senators want. It also does not include student fees, technology surcharges, textbooks, etc, etc., and NIU is a state school that is partially funded by government. Have they looked at places like Yale, Harvard, William & Mary? Wait. Maybe their kids went there?

What is Cornyn's reasoning behind not supporting Senator Webb's full tuition bill? More servicemembers would opt to leave the service if they knew they would get an almost free ride to college. This, in spite of the fact, that all research says that the majority already only opt to serve one term.

duh!


fight for us; kill for us; become injured for us; die for us...

just don't expect anything in return. it's not the American way. fend for yourselves.

ask a lot...

and don't support or reward...

That's what the current administration and the powers that be think of the women and men who put their lives on the line for them. It's not just a crime it's an embarrassment to the memories of past veterans from all wars.

Senators Webb & Hagel have filed a bill that is just and reinforces the commitment that service members have made to us. Senators McCain and Cornyn have put forward their own bill that tells the veterans that their service isn't important. Of course, these are the same men who support the Iraq invasion and want it to continue.

Watch the video below that VoteVets.org is running this week asking Mr. McCain to do the honorable thing. Consider supporting the organizations efforts with a contribution to the work.




Donate here - VoteVets.org

Take a personal stand by signing the petition at The Real McCain: Why won't McCain sign the G.I. Bill?

it's not just being queer...

Another sergeant allegedly told Specialist Hall that as an atheist, he was not entitled to religious freedom because he had no religion.

Everyone is aware that most in the military don't want LGBTQ involved with the service but there has also been a concerted effort by evangelical [christianists] service members to eliminate atheists as well.

Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats

FORT RILEY, Kan. — When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.

But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.

Major Welborn told the soldiers he might bar them from re-enlistment and bring charges against them, according to the statement.

Last month, Specialist Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group, filed suit in federal court in Kansas, alleging that Specialist Hall’s right to be free from state endorsement of religion under the First Amendment had been violated and that he had faced retaliation for his views. In November, he was sent home early from Iraq because of threats from fellow soldiers. New York Times, April 26, 2008

There is a large flaw in Maj. Freddie's argument - going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!

What the Founding Fathers wanted was a nation that had tolerance for all beliefs. Contrary to what Freddie thinks, not believing is a belief.

Add to that the fact that many of the Founding Fathers were not Christian but deists and warned against the intolerance and bigotry of christian sects and you have to wonder what history class Major Freddie missed. It may have been all of his American History classes. Of course, people also hear and read what they want. Christianists insist that they read their Bible literally, when in fact they are the biggest interpreters of it. They will pull the parts that they agree with to bolster their intolerance and ignore the universal message behind it.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Of course, Specialist Jeremy Hall isn't the first time we've heard about religious intolerance in the military. There was the scandal at the Air Force Academy when commanding officers were evangelical proselytizing and forcing cadets to participate and belittling them if they didn't. It was in direct conflict with Air Force procedures and rules.

Also, Remember footballer/soldier Pat Tillman? After his death by friendly fire, there were questions about his non-belief and wild inferencing that it may have been because of this. At the least, military personnel belittle his family after his funeral because of their non-belief.

So much for defending your country's right of tolerance.

another example of Bush's government of the people, by the people, for the people...

Bush Administration cuts $700 million in Medicaid funds for schools

According to the Washington Post, “the Bush administration eliminated about $700 million a year in Medicaid reimbursements to schools, sidestepping an attempt by Congress to block such a move.”

What exactly does this money go to?

A wide variety of medical services, like speech and physical therapy, are provided to students in schools.

So what's the big deal?

Federal law mandates that students in special needs categories must be serviced.

So, now, school districts, that are already stretched to the limit, are going to have to pick up the cost. That means it is going to cost you and I more money in higher local and property taxes or other services are going to have to be cut. Say, music, drama, art....

Oh, wait, schools have already had to eliminate those things because of the NCLB requirements. Guess it'll have to be the sports programs. [What will Texas do without high school football?]

The cost in savings to the Federal government?

$3.7 Billion over a five year period.

Let's see... each day Iraq costs the U.S. $275,000,000. That means that cutting the program moneys for children in need of special services will continue the war for an additional, hmmmmmmmmm.... 13.45 days!

sounds like an equal exchange to me... what do you think?

just asking...

Article II section 2 - U.S. Constitution...

He [the President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

New York Times headline, 27, November 2007 - U.S. and Iraq to Negotiate Pact on Long-Term Relations money quote -

The “Declaration of Principles” signed Monday via video link by President Bush and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, does not specify the eventual number of American troops nor the length of their deployment. That issue is certain to be central in the 2008 presidential campaign that will be under way as American and Iraqi negotiators work toward a July deadline on a treaty governing relations between the two countries.

The question -

Does this, then, mean when the negotiations are completed [projected for July 2008] that the treaty will be presented to the Senate for the mandated two-thirds majority?

or...

will we see some finagling* by the Bush/Cheney administration?


just asking...




*fi·na·gle (fə-nā'gəl); verb: intransitive: 1. to use crafty, deceitful methods; 2. to get or achieve (something) by guile, trickery, or manipulation

we've not seen any of this for the last four years, have we?

DO THEY REALLY MEAN IT? "Democrats Say They Won’t Back Down on War"

That's the headline in today's New York Times.

There are all kinds of quotes from various Dems in the article signifying that they are going to be relentless.

“We are going to keep plugging away,” said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

“There is a lot of unease and disappointment,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, who is running for president. “The perception is that we are not leading on this issue. I get it every single day, wherever I go.”

But Mr. Murtha, one of the most respected voices on military affairs, said Democrats would not relent in their effort to pull out the troops.

“For two years I have publicly fought for the redeployment of our troops from Iraq,” he said. “Congressional Democrats will not stop championing the will of the American people until our troops come home.”

big words, but is there a bigger meaning?

The Republicans, on the other hand, are retorting with their usual stand:

“The commander in chief is the guy in charge of running a war, and they can’t affect that,” said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida. “And they are not going to get the votes to do what they are trying to do, so I don’t see why they continue.”

Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, echoed his party’s contention that Congress should not interfere with the making of progress in Iraq. “The American people, I think, would rather have General Petraeus running the war than members of Congress,” he said, referring to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq. “He has proven his strategy is working.”

The GOP is making one additional push against what they perceive as a purely political strategy by the Dems:

“The Democrats have been pursuing a very political agenda, rather than a get-things-done kind of agenda,” Mr. Martinez said, adding that the vote on Iraq last Friday was “designed to satisfy Moveon.org,” in a reference to the liberal, antiwar group.

Well, I do declare, Miss Scarlett. Isn't that what the GOP has been doing for the last several years? Aren't they the ones who were touting a "Republican" government forever? A major fear of the Founding Fathers was not just monarchy but also a terror of the majority. Mr. Rove made comments over and over about a permanent Republican government.

My, my, how times change...

So, the Dems are keeping up the rhetoric that they mean business. I've done two previous posts on this: what would happen if the Dems were to do what they say? and then an UPDATE. But just a couple of days isn't proof in the pudding...

i want to see this continuing when the money runs out that the Pentagon has. i want to see the Dems sticking to their guns to use a well-worn cliché. i want to see, ultimately, the process of government forced back into use, where the Tsar and his minions start talking to the Dems about compromise. not threatening and throwing tantrums that it's their way or the highway.

talk is cheap. action speaks a thousand times louder.

hhhmmmmmm? i wonder, if any Dems are reading this, that they got the point that i used all the italicized clichés in a cynical/sarcastic way?

just asking...

pulse of the nation on Iraq?

A Gallup poll taken at the end of October focused on how much longer Americans believe we will be in Iraq after the 2008 election.

The question asked:

Suppose a [Republican/Democrat] is elected president in 2008. From the time that [Republican/Democratic] president takes office in January 2009, for how many more years do you think the United States would continue to have a significant number of troops stationed in Iraq?

Some results:

4.1 - average more years predicted for U.S. troops in Iraq if a Democrat is elected president in 2008

7.4 - average more years predicted for U.S. troops in Iraq if a Republican is elected president in 2008

39 - percent who believe America's time in Iraq will be "more years than it should be" if a Democrat is elected president in 2008

57 - percent who believe America's time in Iraq will be "more years than it should be" if a Republican is elected president in 2008

Here's the weird part:

5 - percentage of people with No Opinion if Republican is elected
4 - percentage of people with No Opinion if a Democrat is elected

weird, you ask?

First, who does not have a opinion on Iraq? Second, wouldn't it be great to say that you don't care? Third, I'm not really sure what third would be...


You can see the complete article here: Most Americans Expect U.S. to Be in Iraq Several More Years

UPDATE: what would happen if the Dems were to do what they say?

So the funding bill approved by the House is rejected by the GOP in the Senate. It's same old, same old that has been going on for the last year, The Washington Post reports. No surprise here. The Bushdogs will wag their tails, pant in fear, and drool all over themselves.

The Democrats now have to put OUR money where their mouths are -

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said he may bring the Democratic bill back to the floor in December. He and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have decided that Bush will not receive more war funding this year unless he accepts Democratic withdrawal terms.

This is what 60%+ of all Americans want.

The White House response?

That is out of the question, said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, who dismissed the Democratic vote as a political stunt.

"Once again, they tried to pass a bill that provides incremental funding, tries to micromanage the war from the halls of Congress," Fratto said. Democrats "know that such a bill will be vetoed, should it ever come to the president's desk," he said. "They know this because we've been through this dozens of times now."

And they need to keep going through this over and over and over and over OR not even consider a special funding bill for Iraq. The Constitution clearly states that the Congress has the only power to fund war. If they don't fund it because they can't pass a bill or no even present a bill for a vote, they are doing their job as proscribed by the Constitution.

The Tsar needs to understand this. The Tsar needs to get over it. Maybe, then, he will somehow realize that there really wasn't anything to get over except his self-serving, unadulterated hatred for the Constitution...

One thing that would help is for each of the Democratic candidates for president to make a definitive statement saying that they support the Congress in this. Enough of the rhetoric of My presidency will get us out of.... They need to make a strong statement each time the Congress takes the action it did and each time Bush vetoes what they do, that they support the continued effort of the House and the Senate to reinstate and reinforce the process of government that Bush has nearly destroyed.

just do it...

what would happen if the Dems were to do what they say?

The Democrats gained control of Congress last November on the promise of bringing troops home and ending the U.S. involvement in Iraq. The power that they have is the power of the purse. Congress is the only branch of the government that can authorize spending bills for conflicts.

Tsar George says that the Congress is trying to micromanage the war on terror when it wants to put time limits or conditions on funding. HE is the commander-in-chief and, consequently, the only one who can lead the fight. There is a definite conflict.

Since last November, every time that George has asked for money for Iraq, aka the war on terror, the Democrats have put up a fight only to back down with the rhetoric that George and the Republicans use accusing them of being un-American, putting the troops in harms way, or supporting terrorist.

There has also been quite a number of Dems who just seem to agree with whatever George wants. [I live in the IL-3 Congressional district and Lipinski is known as a bushdog when he really a lapdog] These Democrats have forsaken the principle's of the party platform and forgotten the process of government set out in the Constitution.

Now, Senator Reid has made one statement and suggested one move that would severely cramp Tsar George's style.

First, via Huffpost:

Democrats who lead Congress likened President George W. Bush on Thursday to a bully on Iraq war policy and vowed to spend no more on combat without a deadline for bringing U.S. troops home.

"He damn sure is not entitled to having this money given to him just with a blank check," Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrats' Senate leader, told reporters.

"Americans need someone fighting for them taking on this bully we have in the White House," he said.

Reid and other Democrats, who hold slim majorities in both houses of Congress, accused Bush of wanting a free-flow of hundreds of billions of dollars for the Iraq war, all the while being tight-fisted on the home front.

"Every dollar we spend in Iraq comes at the expense of people in America," Reid said

They've even gone ahead and said that the Pentagon can use some of the $450 billion it just gave them. Of course, the tsar and Pentagon says there isn't that kind of money and needs supplemental funding specifically for Iraq.

Along these lines, the Republicans have attacked a report released yesterday that the actual cost of the war is about $1.5 trillion dollars when the hidden costs are included with the most important being the rising cost of oil. By the time the current bills are paid on the war it could total $3,500,000,000,000.00 by 2017, if there are no more charges made. That is $3.5 trillion!

Of course, the House did just pass a $50 billion Iraq bill and Bush says he's going to veto it. Good! Let him veto it. Let them pass it again. Let him veto it again. If he's playing the game, play the game better.

The second thing that Senator Reid has hinted at is putting an end to recess appointments that Tsar George is good at doing. When the Senate does not approve an appointee, he has merely waited until a recess making the appointment that he wanted anyway. [He took a different stance with Mukasey, saying he wouldn't appoint a AG at all if he didn't get what he wanted. It would have been interesting if it happened. After all having no AG was better that Gonzales. The bushdogs gave him what he wanted though.]

From Rawstory:

A plan engineered by "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to eliminate all extended recesses except for the traditional August break during the 110th Congress may have an added benefit for Democrats," Roll Call reports.

"It could be a back-door way of preventing President Bush from unilaterally installing controversial nominees in key executive and judicial branch posts through recess appointments, a favorite tool of the president over the past six years," John Stanton writes.

Now this would be interesting. It might just force the Tsar to negotiate with Congress, as the process of our government intends, or he would have to fill vacancies from within the existing department as an acting status until he's gone.

But here is the real dilemma - are the Democrats going to find the cajones to stand up this time and will they keep to them once they find them? It's a big question.

if they really want to win the 2008 election, they better...

it ain't the same old S-CHIP...

Well, almost. There are some minor changes to the S-CHIP that Tsar George vetoed last month, and this one is going to be sent to him also. Of course, he says he's going to veto it again, supposedly because it is too costly. The real reason is that his Политбюро [umm, politburo] is not going to let the top members that are involved with the tobacco industry loose money by the increased tax on cigarettes that the program will use for funding. "... and the money kept rolling in...."



sorry, I got carried away.

Well, Joseph A. Palermo over at Huffpost has a great solution --- Attach S-CHIP to the Iraq Spending Bills

Second, the Senate should attach the S-CHIP children's health bill to Bush's request for $196 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. If Bush wants his precious occupation of Iraq and the billions of dollars to maintain it, then he's going to have to sign a bill that also includes $35 billion for the poorest children in the United States to receive elementary health care. Second, the Senate should attach the S-CHIP children's health bill to Bush's request for $196 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. If Bush wants his precious occupation of Iraq and the billions of dollars to maintain it, then he's going to have to sign a bill that also includes $35 billion for the poorest children in the United States to receive elementary health care. What kind of a nation is it that spends lavishly on foreign mercenaries but denies its own children access to a doctor? What kind of a nation is it that spends lavishly on foreign mercenaries but denies its own children access to a doctor? [emphasis added]

Logically, adding it to the Iraq spending bill is providing for the public defense. After all, it's the children who need the most protection.

oh, and every time he vetoes it and there are not enough votes for an override, Congress should pass it again and again and again, making sure that the electorate of every Republican and every Democrat who votes against it or stands in the way of an override knows how anti-family, anti-child and anti-healthcare they actually are.

don't cha think?

just asking...

Patreaus compared to Patrick Fitzgerald...

Andrew Sullivan in his post MoveOn and Coulter today has this one wrong:

Petraeus and Patrick Fitzgerald are examples of public servants in intense political squalls who managed to keep their heads and their integrity intact.

Patreaus and integrity? What about this from his immediate superior Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command:

Adm. Fallon, according to Pentagon sources, used salty language during their first meeting in Baghdad in March to assess his junior officer. He reportedly told Gen. Petraeus that he considered the general to be backside-kissing chicken manure.

The word that most people are using for describing Admiral Fallon's remark to General Patreaus? Can you say sycophant? [I like one of sycophant's synonyms better - fawning parasite! How fun.]

Of course, the general has also made some statements that help one to believe his self-serving intentions. From The Independent:

President Petraeus? Iraqi official recalls the day US general revealed ambition

"I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, 'No, that would be too soon'," Mr [Sabah] Khadim, who now lives in London, said.

Patrick Fitzgerald, on the other hand, has made no such declarations to the best of my recollection and search of the Internet. Here in Chicago he has been the scurge of political misdoings and the history of the Plame case shows his resoluteness. I'm sure that if he could have proven the power(s) behind the incident, he would have done it in a heartbeat.

President Patreaus? If his take on the surge is an indication and the reaction of the American people is a marker, he'll have a long way to go before he can announce a candidacy.

however, stranger things have happened. let's not forget December 11, 2000...

China owns the United States and is paying for Iraq...

At the moment, if you look in the upper right of this blog, you will see that the cost of Iraq has passed the $450 billion mark. The U.S. debt as of tomorrow, 09 August 2007, will be just under $9 trillion.

Where is all this money coming from to pay for things, especially since George W cut taxes which means there is less money coming into the government? A real simple answer?

Foreign concerns and most important China! - to the tune of $1.3 trillion! And China is now pissed off.

The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.

Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Telegraph.co.uk

They're pissed off because of all the sanctions that are being talked about with their exports to the U.S.

What would happen to the US economy if they sold off their bonds and reserves? The dollar would completely tank. At the least, it would mean recession. At the worst? Remember 1929? The housing market would be in a tailspin worse than it is right now because a lot of the lenders count on the connection between interest rates and bonds. Oh, and China will want all of the interest on the bonds it has bought. (kinda like loan-sharking, dontcha think?)

What does all this mean to you and me? Higher prices. Higher interest rates. Greater lending scrutiny. Loss of jobs. What else? Think about it.

How does the second part of this post's headline fit into all of this? George W has sold these government bonds that China has purchased to fund his war in Iraq. That's right. China is actually funding the mess in Iraq. Oh, and though the US oil companies are counting on the oil reserves in Iraq, there is a long standing agreement between China and Iraq that they already have dibs on the oil first.

George Washington must be rolling over and over. He was the one who said, "No foreign entanglements." and Eisenhower must be having a fit. He cautioned about the military-industrial complex back in the 1950's.

no wonder Mayor Daley in Chicago is pushing Chinese language learning in the public schools here...

i know the feeling...

The new report on Pat Tillman's death made public by the AP is turning heads and brining up many, many more questions. It's a situation in a long line of possible miscreant behaviour and cover-ups. From the New York Times today:

Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

and this from TPMmuckraker - :

Was Pat Tillman murdered?

Stunning as it is to contemplate, the Associated Press obtained Pentagon documents through the Freedom of Information Act showing that investigators looked into whether the athlete-turned-soldier might have been deliberately killed in 2004 by members of his Special Forces unit in Afghanistan. Nothing the AP obtained is definitive, and ultimately the friendly-fire ruling withstood a criminal investigation.

but this comment by a responder to the TPMmuckraker article is what I find really very telling:

Like Jon Stewart said a couple of weeks ago, "People ask how you deal with it all, but you do. Now, I'm not saying that when I'm eighty or something someone will offer me a glass of milk and I won't just have a complete breakdown right there..." or something to that effect.

I bring this up because, at this point, I just don't know how much more I can handle. I so hope this isn't true.

P.S. -- My "security code" to post this is "PAIN". So much pain...

.

Posted by: Outraged
Date: July 27, 2007 9:25 AM

There have been many times over the last few months that I have felt the same way, and coupled with that has been a feeling of hopelessness that there is really nothing i can do about all of this...

possible sure-fire way to end the war in iraq...

the Democrats should introduce a law to re-establish the
DRAFT!

I am absolutely, positively serious. Wake up the country's conscience. And watch the Republicans run like hell!

Of course, if King George W wants to win his war, he needs the troops. He was told right from the beginning that more troops was the key to winning. He refused to listen to the generals who learned from Vietnam. He said he could do it on the cheap with a blitzkreig. Oops, we're not supposed to use anything that may compare this administration to the Nazis, sorry.

The parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are so overwhelming, though. That comparison is not supposed to be made either. It's defeatist and we're not losers!

I've thought this, though haven't mentioned it previously, but was reminded in this article by Ron Glasser in the Huffington post: Vietnam and Iraq: A Twice-Told Tale; Again, We Did Know Better

The article is a great read for putting things concerning Iraq in perspective. Check it out.

olbermann special comment...

I said in an earlier post that I would post Keith Olbermann's Special Comment This is YOUR War. Here it is:



When I saw it live last night my thought was "I'm ready to take to the streets again!" just like with Vietnam. Rewatching it made my anger even greater.

The Congress can't do anything, whether it be the Republican's obstructionism or the Democrat's inadequacy to unify. There comes a time, such as 1776 and Vietnam that the people have to take things into their own hands. The first step was taken last November with the mid-term elections. It didn't work.

Is it that time again? Is it time to prove the historical theory that democracies can't last much longer than 200 years wrong? Is it time to put into motion the reestablishment of the voice of America?

just asking...

i'm going to break a rule...

My friends will tell you that I do not go to the movies in a theater unless it's something like a Star Trek, Star Wars, Bourne (opens Aug 3), or something that I think needs to be seen on a big screen because of special effects. The reason I don't go is because I end up sitting near the people whose cell phone rings constantly and they talk or next to the couple who brings their 2-year old to an adult movie and lets her crawl around on the floor with a flashlight. [Yes, this actually happened to me.] It never fails, so I don't go.

This film is something for which I absolutely will break my rule. It was the winner of the Special Jury Prize: Documentary at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival.

The preview below is enough to get me going & not just to go see it...

No End in Sight

you can smell...

Rove's shit all over this one:

The U.S. Defense Department told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the United States eventually plans to withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.

In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.
U.S. Defense Department says Hillary Clinton helps enemy by raising questions on Iraq

Who else has asked about this? Republican Sen. Richard Lugar for one. Did he get a letter?
http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
Are the Republicans afraid of Senator Clinton? Especially since in the polls the number one Republican candidate that people would vote for is "None of the Above?" USA Today

And who exactly is this Eric Edelman person anyway? A former Cheney right-hand man! Would anyone expect anything less? The smell is getting worse...

Olbermann started Countdown tonight with a Special Comment about this. I'm sure it will be on the net soon. I'll post it here when copies start coming up.

you can read the entire Edelman letter here: Response to Sen. Clinton on Contigency Planning