In My Absence

My dear friend Dante (or Dom) will be posting in my absence. It was he who wrote "Red or Blue". He's a dear hearted friend and a college student. Therefore, probably not a lot of time, but I know you'll love his points of views and his writing. He has some interesting ideas and a great insight that is not only refreshing but a very nice and often fun read.


Welcome Dante (Dom)! Good luck, though I know you won't need it. Just be you and remember, sometimes, posting is pure therapy.

Take care my friends, be well, be safe and be happy and remember - Bush can't ever run again. (woohoo!) I'll see you all in about two weeks with pictures and writings of our adventures.

Red or Blue

The following was written by a dear friend of mine. I think he may have a valid point. What say you?


There has been a burning question on my mind that I have dismissed for too long. I have always wondered if education had anything to do with the way a person voted. For example, in a state like Arizona, where for as long as I can remember (20 years) the state has always, been a 'red state'. At the same time, I remember hearing, throughout my school years, that Arizona had horrible public school rankings in funding. So, I in turn thought that there might be some correlation between the two. Now even though a large part of the population of the in Arizona is retirees, many of which are from other states, I still wondered that at the very basis there was still a connection between education and political affiliation.

Before I start however, I just want to make it clear that I know many smart people who are Republicans. Or at least they went to good schools, which I find doesn't mean you are any smarter or dumber. For example, I just read a MySpace headline from someone who attends U of A (a school that I hold in seemingly high regard) that reads: "You can always retake a class, but you can never relive a party," which in my mind is a sure sign of the discombobulating of one's priorities. But don't be misled, there are very special things that come with partying, I would know. The drunk random hook-ups, the gin soaked confessionals with a total stranger, the unrelenting thumping of some second rate rap (I like rap, just not the kind in which every other word is 'ho' or 'rims' or 'bitch', call me old fashioned), an unending stream of vomit and bile, and the ever popular white-trash 'push fight' in which no punches are exchanged, but instead the words 'bitch' 'faggot' and 'fuck(ing)' in no particular order. I do feel however, that school and the attainment of knowledge is just a little more important than setting yourself up for years or liver disease and on the rare occasion, sepsis (look it up, not pleasant). Then again, what would the world or A.S.U. for that matter, be without all those kids and their business degrees. Anyhow, I digress; back to the subject at hand.

After looking at the 'blue state', 'red state' map from the 2004 election, I was compelled to look at what states stood atop the rankings for best public funding and hoped to find some truth to my hypothesis about political affiliation and education (just wanted to make that clear again). What gave me a feeling that others showed my sentiment on the matter was a quote I recently read (then made into a shirt) by John Stuart Mill, that said, "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." So, without further ado, my discourse on Edu-olitics, or, 'How Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh still have jobs?'

I will be brief…if you look at the election map you will see that the majority of the nation's top universities are in 'blue' states.

Yes, the majority of them are private schools, but how much of an effect do these schools have on the other schools in the state. In my own case, 50% percent of the professors whom I have studied under (at UMass, a public university) are Harvard, Boston College, MIT, or Wellesley graduates, most of them with PhD's. Ultimately, what effect do these schools have on the secondary (high school) level schools? Now, I can't speak for Massachusetts high schools on this matter directly, but I can speak for Arizona high schools. Almost every teacher I had in school, K-12, went to an Arizona university. And, not to put to fine a point on it, I felt a little under prepared when I went to the next level. Some of that is my own fault and I have in turn tried to remedy that, but the very fact that my teachers actually tried to pass off the stuff they taught as being education, is laughable. Telling us that Christopher Columbus was a hero and that when he reached the America's he made peace with the natives is in a word, bullshit. Any historical scholar will tell you that Columbus was responsible with the genocide of millions of Caribbean natives. Then 150 or so years later, when the pilgrims arrived, instead of telling the true story of the American Indian holocaust that took place in North America, we are told that there was sharing and camaraderie. Then again, my sister's schools annual Thanksgiving pageant might look a little disturbing if they reenacted the first Thanksgiving (a veritable blood bath, filled with rape, murder and other unspeakable acts). I do realize that a 10 year old kid doesn't need to know what really took place, but I think once they get to oh, 15 and beyond, it is ok. Seeing as that my brother (11 years old) and his friends are already playing Grand Theft Auto.

The question becomes then, who chooses what to teach in public schools, (besides the obvious answer, the school board)? It is my opinion that political affiliation plays into what is taught and not taught and as such, determines what those kids believe as fact or just more liberal propaganda, as the more true to life history books are called today. With all that said. Let's look at the numbers and try to gain some perspective. The states will be marked either blue or red as seen in the 2004 election. Once again this is public school funding per child in ($).


1. NEW YORK 13,230
2. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 12,756
3. NEW JERSEY 12,584
4. CONNECTICUT 12,549
5. MASSACHUSETTS 12,050
6. VERMONT 11,305
7. HAWAII 11,286
8. WYOMING 11,134
9. DELAWARE 10,603
10. PENNSYLVANIA 10,321
11. WISCONSIN 10,052
12. MAINE 9,957
13. MINNESOTA 9,868
14. OHIO 9,824- Color in dispute
15. MARYLAND 9,749
16. ALASKA 9,381
17. MICHIGAN 9,357
18. WEST VIRGINIA 9,346
19. CALIFORNIA 9,265
20. NEW HAMPSHIRE 9,210
21. RHODE ISLAND 9,201
22. GEORGIA 8,960
23. VIRGINIA 8,946
24. ILLINOIS 8,611
25. IOWA 8,571
26. SOUTH CAROLINA 8,552
27. MISSOURI 8,507
28. KANSAS 8,442
29. COLORADO 8,388
30. WASHINGTON 8,385
31. NEW MEXICO 8,281
32. TEXAS 8,218
33. MONTANA 8,064
34. KENTUCKY 8,034
35. NORTH DAKOTA 7,984
36. INDIANA 7,913
37. SOUTH DAKOTA 7,713
38. LOUISIANA 7,585
39. ARKANSAS 7,557
40. OREGON 7,539
41. FLORIDA 7,536
42. NEVADA 7,529
43. NEBRASKA 7,499
44. NORTH CAROLINA 7,432
45. ARIZONA 7,077
46. ALABAMA 7,053
47. MISSISSIPPI 6,676
48. IDAHO 6,639
49. OKLAHOMA 6,563
50. TENNESSEE 6,392
51. UTAH 6,054

In the end, it would seem that across the board the conservative states are struggling to keep up with the more liberal states. And if someone were to go even further to show the difference, think about American history. Where was the start of the American Revolution? Massachusetts. What a hot bed for social change in the 1960's? Berkeley, California. In what state was Woodstock? New York. On the other side, where was Matthew Shepard killed in a hate crime for being homosexual? Wyoming. Where was the 1963 16th street church bombing by the KKK that killed four young girls all under the age of 15? Birmingham, Alabama. Where did recently arrested Warren Jeffs, whom sexual a assaulted minor, married minors to men, over the age of thirty, and raped a minor under the banner of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and held pieces of land devoted to his cause? Colorado, Arizona, and Utah.

This may not mean anything and yet, it may mean a lot. There have been other stories and situations that were overlooked, but these were on a national scale and had both large and small impacts in American history. And yes the data is from 2004 not 1775 or 1963, but it brings up some interesting points that should be addressed. Ultimately, the verdict is out and there will always be a divide between the two. The only question is, what side do you want to represent. As for me, I have made my bed and it is nice and cozy.

Displaced Iraqi's?

Despite the shrill of the idiots, MM, rice, bush, cheney, et al. the Iraqi's are not seeing life and democracy as well as those would have us believe.
*655,000 dead Iraqi's
*Morgues and cities with only a very few hours of power per day.
*Schools and homes bombed
*Civil war
*Fear

Funny how a handful of Americans believe this is a just war. They think so in the name of fear. What would this same handful think if they were an Iraqi today?

Iraq faces displacement crisis

Around one in ten Iraqis could be internally displaced by the end of 2007 as the security situation deteriorates, the International Office for Migration has said.

The agency said one million more people in Iraq could be forced to flee their homes by the end of the year, on top of the 1.4 million people already displaced by the end of 2006.

Many displaced persons live in makeshift houses without electricity or sanitation, the Geneva-based organisation said.

The group said that donors were not responding to its appeals for funds to help the needy.

Oh, how they must love their new found democracy! Yes, we Americans, with flowers thrown at our feet, are their true heros!

Rafiq Tschannen, IOM's chief of mission in Iraq, said: "The needs are enormous. Emergency supplies such as shelter and food are needed urgently for these people who are suffering both physically and psychologically."

"Those who are internally displaced are largely people who don't have the financial resources to leave the country," he added.

This can't be true. Why would they want to leave Iraq? Didn't Saddam swing? Aren't they free?

In the last three weeks alone, almost 18,000 people have been displaced in the 15 central and southern governorates of Iraq, taking the overall number of displaced people from these regions to 290,000 since February 2006, the IOM said.

A further 84,000 people have been reported internally displaced in Iraq's three northern governorates over the same period, the group said.



How can a self-proclaimed Christian, such as the neocons, see this and feel nothing? What have the Iraqi people done to deserve this? Where are those WMD's? And where in the hell is OBL?! Unfortunately, and more importantly, where are the hearts of all Americans?

When They've Got You Over a Barrel

Bush signs $464 billion spending bill


President Bush on Thursday signed a $464 billion spending bill that closes out last year's unfinished budget business but made clear he wasn't entirely happy about it.

Bush said in a statement that he was pleased the bill sticks to his overall budget caps. But he said the Democratic-led Congress did so by shifting "funding needed for our armed forces to unrequested domestic programs."

"The Congress should work to address these priorities without adding to the deficit," he said.


Unrequested domestic programs?? I have called this man clueless, but this statement takes that to a whole new level. Unrequested. He really does think that all the Americans want and need is his little losing wars of aggression, doesn't he? And to what point and purpose?
He's concerned that congress will "add to the deficit"? What? Is he and his war-mongering, war-profiting pirates the only ones allowed to spend our hard earned tax dollars?

The mammoth bill pulls together nine unfinished spending bills funding foreign aid and every domestic agency budget except the Homeland Security Department. This budget work should have been completed months ago but was delayed because of election-year pressures.

It freezes most accounts at 2006 levels while awarding exceptions for other programs favored by Democrats and many Republicans -- paid for primarily by putting off the cost of implementing a 2005 round of military base closings.

Among the beneficiaries is the National Institutes of Health, the FBI, and an increase in the maximum Pell Grant for lower-income college students. The rapidly growing veterans health care budget got a 13 percent boost. U.S. contributions to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis overseas would rise 40 percent.

The bill provides increases for underperforming schools and community health centers, and grants to state and local law enforcement agencies. Amtrak's budget would be frozen at $1.3 billion instead of absorbing a $400 million cut proposed by Bush.

Despite the shrubs stamping and childlike tantrums, this congress flipped him off and put, for the first time in six freaking years, the American people first. Let us all hope that this will be the first of many kicks the decider receives.

Dare We Hope?

Dems challenge Bush's power to wage war


It was a united dream that the new congress stood up to this tyrant and his merry men. We, collectively, applauded the first 100 hours. Then, we sat, holding our breadth, waiting. We waited for the "Hell No!" rubber stamp to be used. We waited for the hand slap that needed to be in regards to Iran and the troop "surge" and the clusterfuck bushco called a budget. What we saw was something a bit different. We saw talks and compromise and name calling.

Just as I was about to abandon all hope, I read this:

Murtha, D-Pa., is preparing legislation that would set strict conditions on combat deployments, including a year rest between combat tours; ultimately, the congressman says, his measure would make it impossible for Bush to maintain his planned deployment of a total of about 160,000 troops for months on end.

Murtha's proposal also might block the funding of military operations inside Iran — a measure intended to send a signal to Bush that he will need Congress' blessing if he is planning another war.

"The president could veto it, but then he wouldn't have any money," Murtha told an anti-war group in an interview broadcast on movecongress.org.

and this:

In an interview Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran "and I take him at his word."

At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

We may not see a standing congress, but they did make it up to their knees. Maybe, with a little luck, they'll be able to stand up to the usual:

"The enemy wants our men and women in uniform to think their Congress doesn't care about them," said Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, who was a prisoner of war during Vietnam. "We must learn from our mistakes. We cannot leave a job undone like we left in Korea, like we left in Vietnam, like we left in Somalia," Johnson said.

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, called the political maneuvering by Democrats "extremely dangerous."

"It could stop reinforcements from arriving in time to stop major casualties in any of a number of scenarios," said Hunter.

Democrats will have to fight critics in the Senate as well.

"I will do everything in my power to ensure the House resolution dies an inglorious death in the Senate," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.


Do you think these clueless republicans know the truth? The enemy is their own president and "extremely dangerous" is staying in Iraq and worse, invading Iran? And, what the hell is this "job undone"? What was the job? Finding WMD's? Hanging Saddam? Stealing 75% of their oil? If so... then Mission Accomplished! Now, get us the hell out!

Nuremberg.. again

I take a lot of flack from Neocons when I liken bush to hitler. I guess it isn't a nice thing to do, but is it honest?
I found myself reading the articles of the Nuremberg Principles this morning. It's like a slap a face of all Americans. It's embarrassing what this man and his cronies have done to our country. Have you seen the way we are talked about in the world? They condemn us as the new nazi germany.

Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

Tell me, can you see our government in any of these? Can you see why the people of the world hate and distrust us? Can we Impeach the bastards now?

Help?

Within the next week, I will be off line for about 25 days.

I have decided to retire and my husband took a transfer to Arizona. After the past year, I am really looking forward to the change. Two of my three sons are in Arisona, which is another plus for me. I miss them a great deal.

We have the U-Haul all set up and are heading out next week. We've decided to make a vacation of it, heading down the east coast and over RT 10 through New Orleans and Texas, and IF they'll let me, a quick slide into Mexico. Being a Georgia O'Keefe fan, we are also heading up into New Mexico. The trip itself should be fun and I'm rather looking forward to it. If you know of any points of interest, please let me know.

Here's where I need a bit of help. I'm looking for some posters. I don't want a pause in our message, our lives and our country and our world are too important to give up on. Anyone and everyone intrested, please let me know as soon as possible and I'll get you set up before I head out.

Thank you in advance. Be safe, be well, be happy.

Same Old Song and Dance

When I first saw this I was angered, then, four lines later I started to yawn. This so called speach is nothing more than the one shrub gave four years ago, only the names have changed. He again, "outlined a threat" with his fear mongering and threatening and deciding.

Tell me, does any of this BS sound familiar?

Bush: Iran is source of deadly weapons

Feburary 2007

1. Challenged on the accuracy of U.S. intelligence, President Bush said Wednesday there is no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American soldiers in Iraq

2. ...conflicting statements about U.S. intelligence in Iran and recurring speculation that Bush is looking for an excuse to attack the Islamic republic, which is believed by Washington and its allies to be seeking nuclear weapons.

3. Defending U.S. intelligence that has pinpointed Iran as a hostile arms supplier in Iraq, Bush said, "Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops."

4. Bush said the Quds Force was instrumental in supplying the weapons — "we know that," he said — and that the Quds Force was part of the Iranian government. "That's a known," he said. "What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds Force to do what they did."



President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio 2002

1. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

2. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

3. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism.

4.I hope this will not require military action, but it may. (snip) we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail.

Are we really willing to do this again? Are we truly, once again, going to be blinded by lies? Isn't it time that we stood up and in one voice declaired the decider is no longer decinding in our name?

Justice?

You and six of your closest friends kidnap a 52 year old grandfather, kill him and then stage a cover-up. You get caught eventually. What would be your sentence? Life without parole? Twenty years to life?

Not if you're one of these guys.

A US Marine has pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit murder and kidnapping in connection with the killing of an Iraqi civilian last year.
Lance corporal Robert Pennington, 22, became the fifth US serviceman to admit involvement in the death of Hashim Ibrahim Awad in Hamdania outside Baghdad on April 26, 2006.

Prosecutors say seven Marines and a Navy medic kidnapped Awad from his home and killed him before staging a cover-up to make it look as if the 52-year-old grandfather was an insurgent.

Four other servicemen have already pleaded guilty to charges relating to the case and have been given custodial sentences ranging from 12 to 21 months.

Being ex-military myself, I found military punishments harsher than civilian. Until now. Maybe I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist. This just seems to ooze cover-up to me.

The True Anti-American

Stram, on another thread, made mention of the shrubs slashing veterans benefits. I thought this needed discussion.
From the throne in the whitehouse, he barks "traitor" and "anti-American" to every non-war supporter. He and the rest of his enterage belive that we who do not support the war, support the terrorists and hate the troops. Yet, in my humble oppinion, actions speak louder than words. And this just screams!

Veterans face consecutive budget cuts

The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans' health care two years from now — even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.
The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends — its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office — sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.

"Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care," said Rep. Chet Edwards (news, bio, voting record) of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget. "Or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."

Edwards said that a more realistic estimate of veterans costs is $16 billion higher than the Bush estimate for 2012.

"It's implausible," Sen. Patty Murray (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., said of the budget projections.

The White House made virtually identical assumptions last year — a big increase in the first year of the budget and cuts for every year thereafter to veterans medical care. Now, the White House estimate for 2008 is more than $4 billion higher than Bush figured last year.


All this said, what is the budget for domestic spying?
The House passed a $463.5 billion spending bill that covers about one-sixth of the federal budget.

What about education?
Equally misguided is the administration's call for $100 million less in spending on Head Start. Giving at-risk children increased, not diminished, access to early education should go hand in hand with the administration goals of improving overall learning.

I could go on, but this is getting rather depressing.

Now, tell me, which side should be pointing fingers and calling names and demanding the other bend to their will?

Warn Out Excuses

Iran rejects US arms allegations

This is worthy of repeating. It seems to me that if the world sees it, liberals see it, American Generals see it, republicans are beginning to see it, then why in the hell can't congress!?

The Iranian embassy in Baghdad has dismissed US charges that its agents had smuggled bombs to Shia fighters in Iraq.

"It's not true. It's not fair. Iran did not supply those weapons. It is like America's former statements against Saddam Hussein about the weapons of mass destruction," an Iranian diplomat told AFP on Monday.

Before their invasion of Iraq in 2003, US officials accused the then Iraqi president of stockpiling chemical weapons. These claims were later disproved and American officials now admit they were mistaken.

On Sunday, an anonymous group of senior US officials showed journalists what they said was proof that Iranian agents had smuggled weapons to Iraq, including "explosively formed penetrators", a form of roadside booby-trap.

These bombs, they said, have killed 170 American and allied troops and wounded 620 more since May 2004.

US defence officials refused to allow reporters to name them or record their briefing, but released pictures of reported Iranian arms.

Am I the only one who sees the BS and the loopholes here?

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

1.) Our strategy is succeeding . . . [Iraq] is on the path to democracy and freedom.” (2004 UN address]
Bush knew otherwise, since a July 2004 CIA report outlines three possibilities for Iraq ranging from “an Iraq whose stability would remain tenous” to “civil war”.

Republicans in Congress, such as Senator Chuck Hagel, claim “the worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we’re winning. Right now, we’re not winning. Things are getting worse.”

2.)When asked during his October 28, 2003 press conference about the recent donor’s conference which produced only $13 billion in pledges - $23 billion short of expectations, Bush claimed “Iraqi oil revenues...coupled with private investments should make up the difference.”

Paul Bremer, the head of the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq, has said that in the near-term oil industry revenues will cover only the industry's own costs. The administration has conceded that Iraqi oil revenues will be zero in 2003 and only $12.1 billion in 2004.

Secretary Rumsfeld proclaimed the war coalition “is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991.”

“It’s a bald-faced lie” according to Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institute. Gulf War I had a 34-nation military force with each nation listed in the coalition contributing troops on the ground, aircraft, ships or medics, plus Japan which provided $4 billion in funding.

Operation Iraqi Freedom consists of only US and British troops with only Australia providing any military contribution, the rest are providing moral support. Rumsfeld’s coalition includes such military powers as the Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Honduras and Rwanda as well as countries such as Costa Rica, Iceland, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and the Solomon Islands which do not even have a military.

Rumsfeld listed a number of countries who either opposed to the war, unaware of their inclusion or requested to be removed form the list including Angola, Bulgaria, Poland, Slovenia and the Solomon Islands.

Only seven percent of the coalition solders in Iraq are from outside the US.

3.) On December 16th, the President stated that “[w]e’re doing everything we can to protect the troops and it’s important for their loved ones to understand that.”

Approx. 30,000 soldiers lack body armor and are using Vietnam-era flack jackets that provide insufficient protection from shrapnel and bullets. The Bush administration refused to provide adequate funding in its last budget. The Senate Armed Services Chairman found this to be “totally unacceptable” and Congress provided funding to address this need. New armor was expected to reach Iraq by late December.


Yes, I could go on with the lies. We all could.


My point here is, can we really trust these self-serving liars with intel on Iran? Gen. Pace doesn't think so.

Hard Hitters

The VoteVets.org activist group is pulling no punches in its vocal attacks on President Bush and supporters of his Iraq policies.
VoteVets.org, a political action group affiliated with a coalition of left-leaning organizations including MoveOn.org, ran an ad (only in certain markets) where Iraq war veterans, including an amputee, spoke out against President Bush’s “surge.”

This is one of the more interesting interviews I have read in quite a while.

We all know shrub will never read it. He wouldn't put an ounce of stock in it if he did. But should these voices be heard? Should they be considered?

Does your position about the war describe the way you felt when you went to Iraq, or is it something that developed during your time there?When I went to Iraq I drank all the Kool-Aid. I still remember thinking about what we were going to do when we found all these weapons of mass destruction. We thought we were going over there to fight the people that attacked this country. Then, when you start seeing things for yourself, when you start hearing things like the president saying, “Bring it on,” it dawns on you that you haven’t been told the truth.

Why did you accuse Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of “aiding the enemy”?
He’s filibustering a debate on the surge. He’s denying Congress the opportunity to send a clear message to the president that his strategy isn’t working. As far as I’m concerned, we’re not winning, and that’s not good. Osama bin Laden is still at large, we’re playing reindeer games in Iraq, and this man is denying American soldiers the democratic debate they deserve. He’s supporting a policy that’s bad for the military, bad for the troops and makes the country less secure. Supporting a policy that’s not effective surely benefits the enemy more than finding one that is.

The entire interview is just wonderful. My personal favorite was when he called cheney a draft dodger.

My guess is the neocons would call this guy a traitor and anti-american. Bets?

Anne Quindlen Says...

There is no better way to support those fighting in Iraq than to guarantee that no more of them die in the service of political miscalculation.

Feb. 19, 2007 issue - Tomorrow. That's when the United States should begin to bring combat forces home from Iraq. Today would be a better option, but already it's tomorrow in Baghdad, in the Green Zone fortress Americans have built in the center of the city, out in the streets where IEDs are lying in wait for passing soldiers and every marketplace may be the endgame for a suicide bomber.

This article is must read. Anne's views and take on the entire situation shed light on truth. Something we have not seen in the media for quite some time.

No one tries to sell that snake oil anymore. Now the party line is that American forces will get out, but they cannot get out now. They cannot get out now because Iraq would become a place of civil war, of untrammeled violence, of complete chaos.

Iraq has been a place of civil war, untrammeled violence, complete chaos for a long time now. American intervention has not made that better. It has made it worse.

Get out now. Provide plenty of consultants to organize police forces and help with reconstruction. Persuade the Iraqi government, such as it is, to ask for peacekeeping assistance from other nations. Put the arm on allies in the Middle East to participate for the sake of stability in the region. Recognize that much of this is about access to oil, and negotiate accordingly while trying to persuade Americans to go to rehab for their fossil-fuel addiction.

Personally, I don't care if I agree with what I read, as long as it's the truth. And I do mean truth, not the MM spin or the faux news spin, just truth. This woman's article is as close to the truth as we will ever get outside the blog-o-sphere.

Congress poll at a glance

OVERALL: Most Americans disapprove of Congress, although the congressional image has shown a modest recovery since the November elections. About a third, 34 percent of Americans, approve of the way Congress is handling its job, according to the latest AP-Ipsos poll. The approval rating of Congress was essentially unchanged from its 32 percent rating in early January despite the legislative agenda of the new Democratic majority.


CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL: Congressional job approval hit a low of 24 percent in AP-Ipsos polling in June, 2006, when 73 percent disapproved of Congress. Immediately before the 2006 congressional elections, Congress had a job approval rating of 25 percent, with 72 percent disapproving. Since then, the image of Congress improved steadily each month, with a modest 5-point jump between early December, 2006 and early January, 2007, right after the new Congress took office.

WHO MOVED: Support for Congress among Democrats increased dramatically in the AP-Ipsos poll compared with pre-election levels. But a majority of Democrats, 52 percent, still disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Just 39 percent of Democrats approve of Congress, although that is up 30 points from the 9 percent who approved in mid-October of 2006. Those who have shown the largest increases in approval of Congress since the elections are women, up 12 points to 34 percent; those in the Northeast, up 21 points to 40 percent; those with household incomes of $75K or more, up 18 points to 43 percent; and those with college degrees, up 12 points to 37 percent. Not surprisingly, Congressional approval among Republicans has declined, although not nearly as much as approval has increased among Democrats. A third, 33 percent of Republicans disapprove, of the way Congress is handing its job, down 8 points from where it was in mid-October 2006.

Can we fathom a guess here? Granted, the new congress did more in the first 100 hours than the old did in years. However, with Iraq first and foremost on the minds of the majority of Americans and now the whitehouse is making a case against Iran, the new majority is acting like the scared minority.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Explain This!

Let me see if I have this right. We, the American people, are to give up civil liberties, allow torture, be in debt for the next million years or so, have our e-mail read, phone conversations listened to, pay a fee to stand in long lines at the airport, endure FBI watch lists and listen as we are told to fear terrorists. We waged a war on "terror" against an undeserving nation. We lost our good standing in the world. All for why? Fear.

If we are afraid of a terrorist attack, affraid of the evil-doers and that axis of evil, then please explain this:

Anti-terror funding slashed in NYC, D.C.

Obama's Plan

The next time I hear shrub, or any neocon for that matter say, "what's their plan?" I'm e-mailing him this.

Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops

U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today introduced binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President's dangerous and ill-conceived escalation of the Iraq war, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home.

"Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said. "That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence."
"The American people have been asked to be patient too many times, too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent," Obama said. "It's time for a policy that can bring a responsible end to this war and bring our troops home."

Key Elements of Obama Plan:
*Stops the Escalation
*De-escalates the War with Phased Redeployment
*Enforces Tough Benchmarks for Progress:
*Congressional oversight: Requires the President to submit reports to Congress every 90 days describing and assessing the Iraqi government's progress in meeting benchmarks and the redeployment goals.

*Intensified Training: Intensifies training of Iraqi security forces to enable the country to take over security responsibility of the country.

*Conditions on Economic Assistance: Conditions future economic assistance to the Government of Iraq on significant progress toward achievement of benchmarks. Allows exceptions for humanitarian, security, and job-creation assistance.

*Regional Diplomacy: Launches a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative - that includes key nations in the region - to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people, end the civil war in Iraq, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict. Recommends the President should appoint a Special Envoy for Iraq to carry out this diplomacy within 60 days. Mandates that the President submit a plan to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider regional conflict.

Now that's a plan!

Who Me??

Vice President Dick Cheney seemed surprised in 2003 when told where his chief of staff had learned the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

From me?" Cheney asked, tilting his head, according to the grand jury testimony of the aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who is on trial on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI

Ah yes, denial of the fittest. Granted this Grand Jury is not asking about an affair, a blow job or anything of that nature. Instead, they are asking about the destruction of a woman's life and career. Why destroy it? Because her husband had the audacity to call out this administration on the Iraq WMD lies.

The question is, will these people be tried for their roll? Will Libby swing alone? Will we ever get to "hang" them for the lies that cost hundreds of thousands of lives? Nope, I don't believe we will. Yet, we are still hearing all about Clinton's blow job, as if that cost us thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.

The outcome of this trial should be interesting. But we all know it won't be. It'll be predictable, Libby will swing for the crimes and lies of his boss. They will, in turn, continue with the lies and war mongering and all with their collective lips firmly planted on the ass of Exxon.

How Low on the IQ Scale can he go?

U.S. sent giant pallets of cash into Iraq

The Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, lawmakers said Tuesday.

The money, which had been held by the United States, came from Iraqi oil exports, surplus dollars from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program and frozen assets belonging to the ousted Saddam Hussein regime.

Bills weighing a total of 363 tons were loaded onto military aircraft in the largest cash shipments ever made by the Federal Reserve, said Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Outraged yet?

"Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone? But that's exactly what our government did," the California Democrat said during a hearing reviewing possible waste, fraud and abuse of funds in Iraq.

On December 12, 2003, $1.5 billion was shipped to Iraq, initially "the largest pay out of U.S. currency in Fed history," according to an e-mail cited by committee members.

It was followed by more than $2.4 billion on June 22, 2004, and $1.6 billion three days later. The CPA turned over sovereignty on June 30.

According to bushco's own detainee bill:
Bush & Co. has portrayed the bill as a tough way to deal with aliens to protect us against terrorism. Frightened they might lose their majority in Congress in the November elections, the Republicans rammed the bill through Congress with little substantive debate.

Anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush's list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens

So, in other words, the world is right, we are the terrorists. We are the country that cares more for war and stripping it's liberties than it's people.
Over 3 million American children went to bed last night without enough to eat. What the hell happened to our caring nature? What happened to our priorities? When did we become so scared, we just stopped feeling for our own people?

Cheneys Dick Energy Policy

Cheney's Fund Manager Attacks ... Cheney

The oil-based energy policies usually associated with Vice President Dick Cheney have just come under scathing attack. There's nothing remarkable about that, of course -- except the person doing the attacking.

"Successive U.S. administrations have taken little interest in either oil substitution or climate change," he writes, "and the current one has even seemed to have a vested interest in the idea that the science of climate change is uncertain."

Yet "there is now nearly universal scientific agreement that fossil fuel use is causing a rise in global temperatures," he writes. "The U.S. is the only country in which environmental data is steadily attacked in a well-funded campaign of disinformation (funded mainly by one large oil company)."

That's Exxon Mobil.

Now, at the risk of repeating myself, isn't this just what libs have been saying all along?

Not to kick a gift horse, but it's about damn time this truth came out, don't you think?

Congress - Draw the Line

Where Congress Can Draw the Line



No war with Iran

If we could trust the Administration’s ability to judge America’s rational self-interest, there would be no need to constrain its threatening gestures toward Iran. Everyone would understand that this was part of the negotiation process; no one would worry that the Administration would finally take a step as self-destructive as beginning or inviting a war.

This is an article written by James Fallows. I agree with him. He has somw great ideas and great insight.

What the Congress can do is draw the line. It can say that war with Iran is anathema to the interests of the United States and contrary to the will of its elected representatives. And it should do that now.

2.9 Trillion??

It's official. The man has completely lost it. He's never had an ounce of common sence, but this is insane!

Bush's $2.9 trillion request is 'sticker shock'

"It just gives you sticker shock. Every time you turn around it's another $100 billion," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, said of Bush's war spending.

The federal deficit hit an all-time high under Bush of $413 billion in 2004. It has been declining since that time and the 2008 budget projects it will continue to decline and show a surplus in 2012, three years after Bush leaves office.

To accomplish those reductions, Bush would allow only modest growth in the government programs outside of defense and homeland security. He is proposing eliminations or sharp reductions in 141 government programs, for a savings over five years of $12 billion, although Congress has rejected many of the same proposals over the past two years.

Bush also will seek to trim spending on farm subsidies by $18 billion over five years, mainly by reducing payments to wealthier farmers, an effort certain to spark resistance among farm state lawmakers.

A Matter of Priorities

It seems as if the decider has decided to give the pentagon and his "war-mongering" friends the lions share of his new budget plan. As expected, he screwed the American people and cut medicaid and medicare. The Pentagon, must be because of the great job they are doing in Iraq, got an 11% increase.

The Pentagon is the big winner in President Bush's proposed budget for next year, while domestic items such as aid to schools and grants to local governments will get slight increases.

Medicare and Medicaid, the health program for the poor and disabled, would shoulder modest but politically difficult cost curbs in the budget the White House is submitting to Congress on Monday.

Some $18 billion in budget savings would come from farm programs over five years.

Bush's spending plan totals almost $3 trillion for the budget year starting October 1. It would produce a surplus in five years, helped by steady revenue growth and a squeeze on the one-sixth of the budget that covers domestic agencies such as the departments of Education, Energy and Health and Human Services.


How long are we going to let this go on? How long can our children and grandchildren wait for us to stand up?

Cheney Profits from Misery

Thanks to my friend Jim over at DeRosa World, we have this little ditty to check out.

Cheney Tax Return Shows Katrina Tax Benefits for Non-Katrina Charitable Contributions

It appears that the VP is a major beneficiary of the Hurricane Katrina tax relief act. In particular, he claimed $6.8 million of charitable deductions, which is 77% of his AGI -- well in excess of the 50% limitation that would have applied absent the Katrina legislation. The press release indicates that the charitable contribution reflects the amount of net proceeds from an independent administrator's exercise of the VP's Halliburton options -- apparently, the VP had agreed back in 2001 that he would donate the net proceeds from the options to charities once they were exercised.
(snip)
Despite the importance of the Katrina legislation to his tax return, it looks like none of the charitable contributions actually went to Katrina-related charities (the press release lists the 3 charitable recipients, all of which were designated in the original 2001 gift agreement).

Why didn't this make front page news? What makes him think that it's okay for everyone else to "support" the troops, but not him?

No-Fly Zone

Before I post a part two to my piece "One Year Ago", I think this is something everyone should see and know.
Everyone needs to know that this is not an isolated incident, this is not a million and one chance. This is the beginning of the end of democracy and the rights and freedoms in which we are told we must fight. GW once said that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. Well, they must be thinking of us as their new best friends now..

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, is authorized by law to maintain watch lists of names of individuals suspected of posing "a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety." While initially denying to the media that such a list existed, the TSA finally acknowledged its existence in October 2002.

EPIC submitted a Freedom of Information Act request in October 2002 to learn more about the operation of the watch lists, which reportedly had been used to interfere with the travel of political activists. When the TSA failed to respond to EPIC's request, EPIC filed suit in December 2002. (EPIC v. TSA). The lawsuit sought, among other things, TSA's criteria for putting people on the lists that bar some passengers from flying and subject others to extensive scrutiny, and complaints from passengers who felt they had been mistakenly placed on the lists. See TSA FOIA response (pdf) for more information.

TSA released documents in response to EPIC's request April 2003. The documents, while heavily redacted, provide give an insight into how the TSA operates the watch lists, and raises several questions for further public and Congressional oversight.

As the TSA contemplates ever more intrusive passenger profiling schemes, the agency documents uncovered through EPIC's FOIA work raise important questions about how the TSA currently operates. The concerns surrounding the agency's administration of the watch lists preview several potential problems with the proposed roll out of passenger prescreening systems such as Secure Flight. The TSA should provide answers to the following questions:

How many people are on the "no fly" and "selectee" lists? How many are American citizens or legal permanent residents?
Who is responsible for oversight of the list? Who verifies that the names are selected appropriately and whether the information accurate?
How does the operation of the watch lists comply with the Privacy Act of 1974?
How effective have the watch lists been?
How can individuals who have been misidentified as watch list matches clear their names?
Why is there a need for a new passenger prescreening program if intelligence agencies are already coordinating to ensure that certain high risk individuals on government watch lists do not board planes?
How will Secure Flight respect individuals' due process rights?

You can read it all here.
Granted, this just talks about American citizens on the "no-fly" FBI watch list. I just thought it was a good place to start.

Fear and Loathing in the U.S.

For years I have been saying that this administration is using fear to control the masses. For this, I have been called names and laughed at by the neocons. Isn't it the fear of terrorists that allows our government to spy on our own people? Isn't it fear that caused a country to sit idly by while bushco re-wrote the Geneva Convention to allow torture? Isn't it the fear of terror and WMD's that this country watched with mouths shut, as these war mongers turned away from al-Qaeda and bombed and innocent Iraq?

Now, here we are at a threshold of another aggressive war. This administration is at it again. Fear mongering to serve their own greedy needs.

In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Bush warned that if the United States fails in Iraq, al-Qaeda will gain a safe haven from which to launch attacks against America. It is an argument that the president, other members of the administration, and neoconservative hawks have been using for years.

In late 2005, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned that al-Qaeda leaders “would turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was before 9/11 – a haven for terrorist recruitment and training and a launching pad for attacks against U.S. interests and our fellow citizens.”

Despite such scare mongering, it is highly improbable that al-Qaeda could use Iraq as the kind of safe haven it enjoyed in Afghanistan. There, the organization had the protection of an entrenched, friendly government, which it would not have in Iraq. Al-Qaeda also had a much larger force in Afghanistan – an estimated 18,000 fighters. Even the U.S. government concedes that there are fewer than 2,000 al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq, and the Iraq Study Group put the figure at only 1,300.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska, has it right. “I have never been persuaded to believe that whether we stay there six months, a year, or two years, that if we would leave, that somehow Iraq would turn into a haven for terrorists.”

His skepticism is well placed.

The notion of al-Qaeda using Iraq as a sanctuary is a specter – a canard that the perpetrators of the current catastrophe use to frighten people into supporting a fatally flawed, and seemingly endless, nation-building debacle.

Are we ready to open our minds now? Are we ready to think on our own? Are we ready to stop the fear mongering and the waging of illegal wars? Have we had enough yet?

Wasted

Bill Gates pays no taxes. The super wealthy have the luxury of tax shelters and deductions and contributions where in they pay nothing, or almost nothing in Federal tax.
We, the basic, hard working Americans, pay our fair share and then some.
I, for one, would pay my share with a smile, if it were used for the good of Americans. Medicare for the elderly, food for the poor, work programs for the displaced unemployed, these are some things I believe in paying for and believe we need and owe our people.

This is not:

The quarterly audit by Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, is the latest to paint a grim picture of waste, fraud and frustration in an Iraq war and reconstruction effort that has cost taxpayers more than $300 billion and left the region near civil war.

The audit comes as President Bush is pressing Congress to approve $1.2 billion in new reconstruction aid as part of his broader plan to stabilize Iraq by sending 21,500 more U.S. troops to Baghdad and Anbar province.

According to the report:

Major U.S. contractors in Iraq, including Bechtel National and Kellogg, Brown and Root Services Inc., said they devoted an average 12.5 percent of their total expenses for security.
Bowen’s office opened 27 new criminal probes in the last quarter, bringing the total number of active cases to 78.
Twenty-three are awaiting prosecutorial action by the Justice Department, most of them centering on charges of bribery and kickbacks.

Tell me, is this a waste of your hard earned dollars?