Friday, October 31, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Barack Obama's team is briefed by Bush staff on after warnings about a terrorist attack
I smell a false flag operation.
Original Story at Telegraph.co.uk
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 9:26PM BST 18 Oct 2008
Officials from both campaigns have been asked to briefings after warnings from US intelligence that terrorists and rogue states will seek to exploit the power vacuum following November's presidential election.
For the first time in American history the FBI has begun vetting likely officials of the next administration before the election, to ensure they have security clearance to deal with crises on day one.
Intelligence chiefs expect an attempt to emulate the terrorist strikes on Britain when Gordon Brown took power and are concerned that Russia or Iran could use the 77 days of paralysis between the election and the inauguration on January 20 for acts of international brinkmanship, like the invasion of Georgia.
An official involved in the transition discussions told The Sunday Telegraph: "There has been no specific threat but the assessment is that someone will try something.
"It could be a terrorist attack on US assets overseas. It could be the leader of a rogue state chancing his arm. Putin and Ahmadinejad have form."
The transition of power in the US is a chaotic process. More than 1,100 political appointees in senior posts have to be approved by the Senate, a process that can take months.
On Wednesday the current White House chief of staff, Josh Bolten, chaired a meeting of senior White House staff and representatives of both Mr Obama and his Republican rival John McCain.
President Bush's creation of this Presidential Transition Coordinating Council, the earliest ever, is designed to avoid a repeat of the situation on September 11 2001, when only one third of his national security appointees had been approved by the Senate, nine months into his presidency.
Martha Kumar, director of the White House Transition Project, an independent group that advises the transition teams of both campaigns, told The Sunday Telegraph: "The times of changing of power are soft times, times of vulnerability. Just look at what has happened around the world, including in Great Britain.
"You had the failed bombings in London and then the attack at Glasgow airport three days after Gordon Brown took office. In Spain the Madrid bombings were three days before the presidential election."
There have been particularly intensive efforts to make sure Mr Obama has his national security team in place, not just because he is widely expected to win the election on November 4, but because intelligence analysts believe America's enemies are more likely to try to take advantage of Mr Obama's international inexperience than they would of Mr McCain.
A senior official in the Obama camp, whose name has been submitted for FBI vetting, said: "We will be ready and we will be seen to be ready."
He said that Mr Obama is close to finalising plans for his first 100 days in power - which will include major moves on the economy, healthcare and Iraq in his first week, designed to make his priorities clear to Americans.
He is planning a series of early interventions to stamp his authority on the economic crisis. This will include legislation proposing a $300bn stimulus package which would be published before President Bush has even left the White House, so that it can be passed as soon as he takes power.
Mr Obama is also planning executive orders that do not require legislation on his first day in office, which could include plans to promote renewable energy resources and create jobs.
His transition team, which is reportedly much more extensive and active than Mr McCain's, features 10 working groups in different policy areas to convert campaign promises into concrete legislation. It is chaired by John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former White House chief of staff who runs the Centre for American Progress, a think tank long seen as a Democratic administration in exile.
Mr Podesta is working closely with Michael Signer, a former foreign policy aide to John Edwards in charge of homeland security affairs. Mr Podesta and Jason Furman, one of Mr Obama's two most influential economic advisers, have already held talks with sceptical conservative Democrats to line up the votes to pass a stimulus package.
Mr Obama has also worked to cultivate a close relationship with the Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, and personally asked him to help out during the transition, sparking speculation that he might keep Mr Paulson in post for the first year of his presidency.
Ms Kumar said: "There are things that a president can do immediately that establish his brand of leadership and help establish with the public what the priorities are.
"Reagan issued executive orders at the luncheon following the inauguration. He didn't even wait to get to the White House. He wanted to show how seriously he took the issue of the economy."
FBI vetting is also under way on 100 people from both campaigns, including Susan Rice, expected to be made the second successive black woman national security adviser after Condoleezza Rice; Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer tipped to become Mr Obama's chief White House counsel and his likely White House chief of staff; and the former senator and campaign chairman Tom Daschle. If Daschle prefers to become Health Secretary, Obama's current chief of staff Pete Rouse, nicknamed the 101st Senator for his connections on Capitol Hill, would take the job.
Other key national security officials will include Denis McDonough, chief foreign affairs adviser to the campaign and Richard Danzig, a secretary of the Navy under Clinton.
John Kerry, the Democratic candidate four years ago, and his fellow senator Chris Dodd, a failed candidate this year, are vying to become Secretary of State.
Mr Kerry, an Army veteran, is also a contender to take control of the Pentagon, but many expect that post to go to a Republican, perhaps the maverick senator Chuck Hagel. Colin Powell, a former secretary of state and chairman of the joint chiefs could return to government if he endorses Obama, as many expect. The veteran Democratic Senator Sam Nunn's name is also in the frame.
Original Story at Telegraph.co.uk
Senior aides to Barack Obama have been meeting George W.Bush's staff to begin planning a smooth transfer of power.
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 9:26PM BST 18 Oct 2008
Officials from both campaigns have been asked to briefings after warnings from US intelligence that terrorists and rogue states will seek to exploit the power vacuum following November's presidential election.
For the first time in American history the FBI has begun vetting likely officials of the next administration before the election, to ensure they have security clearance to deal with crises on day one.
Intelligence chiefs expect an attempt to emulate the terrorist strikes on Britain when Gordon Brown took power and are concerned that Russia or Iran could use the 77 days of paralysis between the election and the inauguration on January 20 for acts of international brinkmanship, like the invasion of Georgia.
An official involved in the transition discussions told The Sunday Telegraph: "There has been no specific threat but the assessment is that someone will try something.
"It could be a terrorist attack on US assets overseas. It could be the leader of a rogue state chancing his arm. Putin and Ahmadinejad have form."
The transition of power in the US is a chaotic process. More than 1,100 political appointees in senior posts have to be approved by the Senate, a process that can take months.
On Wednesday the current White House chief of staff, Josh Bolten, chaired a meeting of senior White House staff and representatives of both Mr Obama and his Republican rival John McCain.
President Bush's creation of this Presidential Transition Coordinating Council, the earliest ever, is designed to avoid a repeat of the situation on September 11 2001, when only one third of his national security appointees had been approved by the Senate, nine months into his presidency.
Martha Kumar, director of the White House Transition Project, an independent group that advises the transition teams of both campaigns, told The Sunday Telegraph: "The times of changing of power are soft times, times of vulnerability. Just look at what has happened around the world, including in Great Britain.
"You had the failed bombings in London and then the attack at Glasgow airport three days after Gordon Brown took office. In Spain the Madrid bombings were three days before the presidential election."
There have been particularly intensive efforts to make sure Mr Obama has his national security team in place, not just because he is widely expected to win the election on November 4, but because intelligence analysts believe America's enemies are more likely to try to take advantage of Mr Obama's international inexperience than they would of Mr McCain.
A senior official in the Obama camp, whose name has been submitted for FBI vetting, said: "We will be ready and we will be seen to be ready."
He said that Mr Obama is close to finalising plans for his first 100 days in power - which will include major moves on the economy, healthcare and Iraq in his first week, designed to make his priorities clear to Americans.
He is planning a series of early interventions to stamp his authority on the economic crisis. This will include legislation proposing a $300bn stimulus package which would be published before President Bush has even left the White House, so that it can be passed as soon as he takes power.
Mr Obama is also planning executive orders that do not require legislation on his first day in office, which could include plans to promote renewable energy resources and create jobs.
His transition team, which is reportedly much more extensive and active than Mr McCain's, features 10 working groups in different policy areas to convert campaign promises into concrete legislation. It is chaired by John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former White House chief of staff who runs the Centre for American Progress, a think tank long seen as a Democratic administration in exile.
Mr Podesta is working closely with Michael Signer, a former foreign policy aide to John Edwards in charge of homeland security affairs. Mr Podesta and Jason Furman, one of Mr Obama's two most influential economic advisers, have already held talks with sceptical conservative Democrats to line up the votes to pass a stimulus package.
Mr Obama has also worked to cultivate a close relationship with the Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, and personally asked him to help out during the transition, sparking speculation that he might keep Mr Paulson in post for the first year of his presidency.
Ms Kumar said: "There are things that a president can do immediately that establish his brand of leadership and help establish with the public what the priorities are.
"Reagan issued executive orders at the luncheon following the inauguration. He didn't even wait to get to the White House. He wanted to show how seriously he took the issue of the economy."
FBI vetting is also under way on 100 people from both campaigns, including Susan Rice, expected to be made the second successive black woman national security adviser after Condoleezza Rice; Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer tipped to become Mr Obama's chief White House counsel and his likely White House chief of staff; and the former senator and campaign chairman Tom Daschle. If Daschle prefers to become Health Secretary, Obama's current chief of staff Pete Rouse, nicknamed the 101st Senator for his connections on Capitol Hill, would take the job.
Other key national security officials will include Denis McDonough, chief foreign affairs adviser to the campaign and Richard Danzig, a secretary of the Navy under Clinton.
John Kerry, the Democratic candidate four years ago, and his fellow senator Chris Dodd, a failed candidate this year, are vying to become Secretary of State.
Mr Kerry, an Army veteran, is also a contender to take control of the Pentagon, but many expect that post to go to a Republican, perhaps the maverick senator Chuck Hagel. Colin Powell, a former secretary of state and chairman of the joint chiefs could return to government if he endorses Obama, as many expect. The veteran Democratic Senator Sam Nunn's name is also in the frame.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Failout
What happens when the President and his cronies decide to "Legislate from the Oval Office"? New word: Failout. This President and his cronies are now attempting to bypass the Legislative Branch by drafting laws themselves to provide more cash to a Wall Street that has managed to squander all of the cash that the under-regulated, free-market system once espoused by this President as the brainchild of his idol, Republican demi-god Ronald Reagan.
I am particularly displeased with the House and Senate Democratic leadership on this one. First and foremost, the legislature should have been all over this months ago. Specifically, I am pointing my finger at you, Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd. How could you allow the administration to one-up you like that and have a completed bill to put on the table last week? I mean, yeah it was only 3 pages, so they probably showed up early that morning and cobbled it together (much in the same manner a procrastinatorial high-schooler may utilize first-period Algebra class for their writing assignment on Chaucer). Either way, even with their procrastination the Administration managed to put forth a proposal that was allegedly a month or two in the making. Now, the members of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committee, as well as their counterparts in the House, are stuck attempting to draft legislation which is based upon the Bush Administration's core intent, which is to provide some easy money to "stimulate" the credit market with new capital.
Never in my wildest dreams did I expect to be hearing the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, as a voice of reason in a crisis. Nonetheless, there he was, and the liberals and conservatives in Congress managed to actually reach across party lines and defeat the centrists in staving off the bailout bill. Everyone's favorite congressman, Dennis Kucinich was there to vote against it as well:
This is really a plan that should have input from more sectors of the population and the economy. There will be huge ramifications with regard to funding availability in the future for other parts of government (including the ones which are working very well). We need to put an end to short-term stitches, and endeavor to create more long-range plans. Otherwise, we will continue to rely upon debt as a vehicle for providing cash flow to support our half-baked solutions.
I am particularly displeased with the House and Senate Democratic leadership on this one. First and foremost, the legislature should have been all over this months ago. Specifically, I am pointing my finger at you, Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd. How could you allow the administration to one-up you like that and have a completed bill to put on the table last week? I mean, yeah it was only 3 pages, so they probably showed up early that morning and cobbled it together (much in the same manner a procrastinatorial high-schooler may utilize first-period Algebra class for their writing assignment on Chaucer). Either way, even with their procrastination the Administration managed to put forth a proposal that was allegedly a month or two in the making. Now, the members of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committee, as well as their counterparts in the House, are stuck attempting to draft legislation which is based upon the Bush Administration's core intent, which is to provide some easy money to "stimulate" the credit market with new capital.
Never in my wildest dreams did I expect to be hearing the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, as a voice of reason in a crisis. Nonetheless, there he was, and the liberals and conservatives in Congress managed to actually reach across party lines and defeat the centrists in staving off the bailout bill. Everyone's favorite congressman, Dennis Kucinich was there to vote against it as well:
This is really a plan that should have input from more sectors of the population and the economy. There will be huge ramifications with regard to funding availability in the future for other parts of government (including the ones which are working very well). We need to put an end to short-term stitches, and endeavor to create more long-range plans. Otherwise, we will continue to rely upon debt as a vehicle for providing cash flow to support our half-baked solutions.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The Taxing Truth This Election
So, I recently did a long drawn-out investigation of the data dumped by the Tax Policy Center on the tax proposals of Obama and McCain. A lot of info, but I have done a better job summarizing it than many of the graphs floating around out there on the 'Net. I'm posting the link here to the blog post on The Cincinnati Enquirer.
If you scroll to the bottom of the page, click up the "Recommend" flag at the bottom of the article, and it will help knock it to the top of the "Recommended" list on the website, and thus get many many more views in the notoriously Republican southwest corner of Ohio, and hopefully do some work to dispel Republican myths.
As always, share the link and spread it around. In addition to the typical "how much taxes do you save" analysis, I also took the liberty to summarize the impact on the federal deficit too. This is one point that is important to many, but gets very much less impact.
If you scroll to the bottom of the page, click up the "Recommend" flag at the bottom of the article, and it will help knock it to the top of the "Recommended" list on the website, and thus get many many more views in the notoriously Republican southwest corner of Ohio, and hopefully do some work to dispel Republican myths.
As always, share the link and spread it around. In addition to the typical "how much taxes do you save" analysis, I also took the liberty to summarize the impact on the federal deficit too. This is one point that is important to many, but gets very much less impact.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
McCain/Palin: Fear First
So, I am watching the Republican National Convention tonight, and I saw the Homage to 9/11. How disgraceful of the RNC to reach back to 9/11 with a purely cynical, self-serving stage show, abusing the memory of those who died on September 11, 2001. I can't even begin to explain how shocked I was that this was going on. I thought for sure they wouldn't go there. So, the party leadership reveals who they are to the American people: Shameless opportunists who will use any device to get ahead. I have boycotted all of the Hollywood recreations of September 11, 2001, including the numerous movies about United flight 93, out of a sense of respect and dignity for those who died. This is a sad commentary on the real values held by the Republican Party today, and a far cry from the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Goldwater, and, yes, even Ronald Reagan.
I hope that all of you readers can find the time to write to your Republican, Democratic, and Independent representatives and candidates to voice your outrage at what a terrible offense has been committed to the memories of those dead in the Sept. 11 attacks, and the brave soldiers and unfortunate civilians that have died in the fighting since.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
He Speaks
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) delivers his speech at the Democratic National Convention:
A very energetic speech about what has been accomplished in the past 8 years.
A very energetic speech about what has been accomplished in the past 8 years.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Dear American Issues Project: Your Ad Is So Powerful...
...I had to get up an leave the room until it aired out.
I just saw your ad, and I have to say: Hyperbole Much?
Honestly, you create a connection between Obama and Ayers that supposes that Ayers is some sort of social outcast, save for the close personal friendship of Obama. In fact, Ayers, who is a Professor at the University of Chicago, UIC, and Northwestern. A law professor himself, it is very unlikely that the two would not have to work together. Seriously, the current president can be tied in such loose terms to Osama bin Laden even. Additionally, you've also neglected to consider that Ayers has a long history in the Hyde Park neighborhood, including many political connections in the Chicago scene (again, a place where the two of them are unlikely to spend much time without cooperating sometimes).
Additionally, you've connected them both as working together on the Woods fund board of Directors. What you fail to say is that they were appointed to that non-profit fund by the Mayor of Chicago, nor do you plan on ever informing your viewers what the fund is (judging from your site you probably think it is "evil Communism").
For an organization that seems intent on further informing public opinion and changing minds, you are severely closed minded about how much Mr. Ayers can change his own mind over the course of 40 years.
I also browsed the rest of your site, and I can find really nothing of substance save for the "extensive research of the Obama-Ayers connection". Much of this "over 100 pages" is highly redundant reporting, back story about the Weather Underground, and even a 7 page discussion of 9/11 and United 93, carefully planted to evoke sympathy and/or anger from the reader.
Your energy security "idea" is pretty sparse to say the least. You drop in some shout-outs to numerous renewable energy sources, but your prime focus is on non-renewable resources. In fact, all of the photography is photos of offshore oil wells. You make a big pitch for coal and shale-based energies as well. I can't help but feel that your priority is to preserve the current resource hoarding, depletion, and control markets. Really, you have nothing new to share, and even the regurgitated party lines aren't even discussed in detail.
Your "strong economy" says nothing about how your proposals will help to strengthen the economy. Your bullet points "Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts", "Opposing any attempt to raise taxes in any form", "Supporting free trade", "Opposing over-regulation of American business and industry" all promote an approach to public policy that HAS NEVER HELPED TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY, PERIOD. We tried this over the past 7 years: nothing. Remember the 80's? Yeah. The "roaring" 80's! Fat chance. I don't know anybody who wants a return to the 80's. What about the 20's? The "Roaring 20's"? Well, they culminated with the dawn of Great Depression (a market correction event of similar size to the unregulated growth during the 20's). Harding + Coolidge + Hoover = Great Depression. Say it all together.
Additionally, your proposals in "Safe & Secure Homeland" seem to be in conflict with yours from "Strong Economy". How would you propose we pay for the fencing, the monitoring, the supervision, and the enforcement of such a strong border policy. I think that it is impressive that there isn't more illegal immigration with the system that we have currently, and it is a testament to how strongly the border patrol and support people manage to work with what they have. As you try to narrow that group of illegal immigrants down to zero you reach a point of diminishing returns. Surely you are familiar with these, as you purport to know so much about strengthening the economy.
As for your "Protecting American Families" agenda, you speak nothing of actually protecting families. You speak worlds about how you will enforce creating more families, ones without planning. What do you plan to do to protect them? I can't see a single mention of any family services or assistance that you will support. Surely if you care so much about precious children, you also care that they live in supportive and nurturing homes. By the way, no "Activist Judge" in Massachusetts "thwarted the will of the people". The issue of gay marriage was actually a vote in the statehouse. Seems that you see no problem "thwarting the will of the people", however, when it suits your own agenda. You must be thinking of New Hampshire. I know, it is hard, they are some of 'dem smallish states up the the nor'east. Okay, give your brain a rest for a minute...
Better? Good. Judicial "Activism" has not given us a single thing that you report on your site. Can you explain to me what threat to you or your agency is posed by gay marriage, abortion, or removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance.
Hey! You know what, I can't believe that activists in the Executive branch inserted "under God" into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950's. What was his name? Eisenhower? Yeah, he built that big public works project: the Interstate System. Remember that? I am surprised that you don't think of the large, federally subsidized and regulated network of highways to be "Socialism". It definitely fits the description. Ah, that's right, the guy in charge of it is your hero. Well, I guess that just changes everything now doesn't it.
Oh yeah. And the "In God We Trust" on our money? That was added during the civil war by Abraham Lincoln's Treasury Secretary. Another "activist" from the executive branch.
Neither of these were performed by popular vote, or even by popular legislative process. Instead, they were "activists" in high places pulling strings to get their messages across.
Well, seems that you *do* like "activists" after all, just only when they are suiting your agenda. Otherwise, they must be evil and must be stopped and represent everything "Un-American".
In closing, from the poorly researched bullet points on your site, the vague position statements, lack of documentation and references, and blatant contradictions and hypocrisy I can only conclude one thing: You are merely a front group that was created (on or around 05-August-2008) for the purpose of publishing misleading ads to drag public discourse into the putrid, feces-laden pig-sty that you have set up shop within. You provide nothing here to inform newcomers of why your positions and proposals are "American" or even beneficial. Rather, you merely seem to be blowing your cash on misleading your viewership. I suppose that it must be so lonely and pathetic in your world that you can only find company by lashing out to the rest of us up here in a sad attempt to drag us down to your level.
When you have real discourse, research, and well-thought out ideas (rather than rehashed Reagan talking points), you can participate in this debate. Until then, you will remain mired in the loneliness that is your own ignorance, intolerance, and refusal to adapt to the real world.
This article is my rebuttal to The American Issues Project, and it's latest attack ad (linked on the site).
I just saw your ad, and I have to say: Hyperbole Much?
Honestly, you create a connection between Obama and Ayers that supposes that Ayers is some sort of social outcast, save for the close personal friendship of Obama. In fact, Ayers, who is a Professor at the University of Chicago, UIC, and Northwestern. A law professor himself, it is very unlikely that the two would not have to work together. Seriously, the current president can be tied in such loose terms to Osama bin Laden even. Additionally, you've also neglected to consider that Ayers has a long history in the Hyde Park neighborhood, including many political connections in the Chicago scene (again, a place where the two of them are unlikely to spend much time without cooperating sometimes).
Additionally, you've connected them both as working together on the Woods fund board of Directors. What you fail to say is that they were appointed to that non-profit fund by the Mayor of Chicago, nor do you plan on ever informing your viewers what the fund is (judging from your site you probably think it is "evil Communism").
For an organization that seems intent on further informing public opinion and changing minds, you are severely closed minded about how much Mr. Ayers can change his own mind over the course of 40 years.
I also browsed the rest of your site, and I can find really nothing of substance save for the "extensive research of the Obama-Ayers connection". Much of this "over 100 pages" is highly redundant reporting, back story about the Weather Underground, and even a 7 page discussion of 9/11 and United 93, carefully planted to evoke sympathy and/or anger from the reader.
Your energy security "idea" is pretty sparse to say the least. You drop in some shout-outs to numerous renewable energy sources, but your prime focus is on non-renewable resources. In fact, all of the photography is photos of offshore oil wells. You make a big pitch for coal and shale-based energies as well. I can't help but feel that your priority is to preserve the current resource hoarding, depletion, and control markets. Really, you have nothing new to share, and even the regurgitated party lines aren't even discussed in detail.
Your "strong economy" says nothing about how your proposals will help to strengthen the economy. Your bullet points "Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts", "Opposing any attempt to raise taxes in any form", "Supporting free trade", "Opposing over-regulation of American business and industry" all promote an approach to public policy that HAS NEVER HELPED TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY, PERIOD. We tried this over the past 7 years: nothing. Remember the 80's? Yeah. The "roaring" 80's! Fat chance. I don't know anybody who wants a return to the 80's. What about the 20's? The "Roaring 20's"? Well, they culminated with the dawn of Great Depression (a market correction event of similar size to the unregulated growth during the 20's). Harding + Coolidge + Hoover = Great Depression. Say it all together.
Additionally, your proposals in "Safe & Secure Homeland" seem to be in conflict with yours from "Strong Economy". How would you propose we pay for the fencing, the monitoring, the supervision, and the enforcement of such a strong border policy. I think that it is impressive that there isn't more illegal immigration with the system that we have currently, and it is a testament to how strongly the border patrol and support people manage to work with what they have. As you try to narrow that group of illegal immigrants down to zero you reach a point of diminishing returns. Surely you are familiar with these, as you purport to know so much about strengthening the economy.
As for your "Protecting American Families" agenda, you speak nothing of actually protecting families. You speak worlds about how you will enforce creating more families, ones without planning. What do you plan to do to protect them? I can't see a single mention of any family services or assistance that you will support. Surely if you care so much about precious children, you also care that they live in supportive and nurturing homes. By the way, no "Activist Judge" in Massachusetts "thwarted the will of the people". The issue of gay marriage was actually a vote in the statehouse. Seems that you see no problem "thwarting the will of the people", however, when it suits your own agenda. You must be thinking of New Hampshire. I know, it is hard, they are some of 'dem smallish states up the the nor'east. Okay, give your brain a rest for a minute...
Better? Good. Judicial "Activism" has not given us a single thing that you report on your site. Can you explain to me what threat to you or your agency is posed by gay marriage, abortion, or removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance.
Hey! You know what, I can't believe that activists in the Executive branch inserted "under God" into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950's. What was his name? Eisenhower? Yeah, he built that big public works project: the Interstate System. Remember that? I am surprised that you don't think of the large, federally subsidized and regulated network of highways to be "Socialism". It definitely fits the description. Ah, that's right, the guy in charge of it is your hero. Well, I guess that just changes everything now doesn't it.
Oh yeah. And the "In God We Trust" on our money? That was added during the civil war by Abraham Lincoln's Treasury Secretary. Another "activist" from the executive branch.
Neither of these were performed by popular vote, or even by popular legislative process. Instead, they were "activists" in high places pulling strings to get their messages across.
Well, seems that you *do* like "activists" after all, just only when they are suiting your agenda. Otherwise, they must be evil and must be stopped and represent everything "Un-American".
In closing, from the poorly researched bullet points on your site, the vague position statements, lack of documentation and references, and blatant contradictions and hypocrisy I can only conclude one thing: You are merely a front group that was created (on or around 05-August-2008) for the purpose of publishing misleading ads to drag public discourse into the putrid, feces-laden pig-sty that you have set up shop within. You provide nothing here to inform newcomers of why your positions and proposals are "American" or even beneficial. Rather, you merely seem to be blowing your cash on misleading your viewership. I suppose that it must be so lonely and pathetic in your world that you can only find company by lashing out to the rest of us up here in a sad attempt to drag us down to your level.
When you have real discourse, research, and well-thought out ideas (rather than rehashed Reagan talking points), you can participate in this debate. Until then, you will remain mired in the loneliness that is your own ignorance, intolerance, and refusal to adapt to the real world.
This article is my rebuttal to The American Issues Project, and it's latest attack ad (linked on the site).
Thursday, August 21, 2008
How Do You Win An Occupation?
McCain and others have talked about the need to win in Iraq, to let the troops come home with a victory. I suppose this kind of language makes sense if we are talking about a football game, but I'm really not sure how "winning" applies to Iraq.
The war ended when Bush announced "Mission Accomplished." From then on, this has been an occupation.
So, how exactly do you win an occupation? Is it won when the U.S. has secured control over the natural resources that belong to the Iraqi people? When U.S. corporations have made a certain amount of profit from the curious economic activity of blowing up infrastructure and homes and forcing the victims to pay them to rebuild it? When ethnic and religious differences have been used to divide a once united country? When the Iraqi people have been so demoralized and have so completely lost hope that they stop resisting?
Americans should not want to "win" in this situation. Leaving Iraq (all troops, all contractors, and all bases) isn't about winning or losing. It's about finally doing the right thing--by international law, by American law, and by basic human decency.
The war ended when Bush announced "Mission Accomplished." From then on, this has been an occupation.
So, how exactly do you win an occupation? Is it won when the U.S. has secured control over the natural resources that belong to the Iraqi people? When U.S. corporations have made a certain amount of profit from the curious economic activity of blowing up infrastructure and homes and forcing the victims to pay them to rebuild it? When ethnic and religious differences have been used to divide a once united country? When the Iraqi people have been so demoralized and have so completely lost hope that they stop resisting?
Americans should not want to "win" in this situation. Leaving Iraq (all troops, all contractors, and all bases) isn't about winning or losing. It's about finally doing the right thing--by international law, by American law, and by basic human decency.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Information Hiding and the Olympics
So, you may have all heard of the controversy surrounding He Kexin (the gold medal winning gymnast from China). If you haven't, you can get the scoop on her wikipedia entry.
Yesterday, another blogger used search engines to find information on the age of the gymnast. You might be pretty surprised at what they were able to turn up:
Yesterday, another blogger used search engines to find information on the age of the gymnast. You might be pretty surprised at what they were able to turn up:
"Go back, these are not the gymnasts you are looking for."
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Things That Will Reduce Gas Prices By As Much As Offshore Drilling
1. Clubbing baby seals...recreationally
2. Littering
3. Mass-producing those plastic things that hold six-packs together and throwing them into the ocean
4. Removing breakwalls and anything else meant to prevent erosion.
5. Cutting down trees...in parks...again, recreationally
6. Introducing invasive species into ecologically fragile areas
7. Dumping hazardous waste into rivers
8. Targeting dolphins when fishing
All of these things will reduce gas prices by the same amount as offshore drilling. That is, they will have NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. In the words of the Energy Information Agency (part of the U.S. Department of Energy), "oil prices are determined on the international market...any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."
But if you're going to propose a completely useless energy policy solely to paint the other candidate as an environmentalist elitist, go all out. I hear clubbing baby seals can reduce gas prices by 87% (it's a psychological effect).
2. Littering
3. Mass-producing those plastic things that hold six-packs together and throwing them into the ocean
4. Removing breakwalls and anything else meant to prevent erosion.
5. Cutting down trees...in parks...again, recreationally
6. Introducing invasive species into ecologically fragile areas
7. Dumping hazardous waste into rivers
8. Targeting dolphins when fishing
All of these things will reduce gas prices by the same amount as offshore drilling. That is, they will have NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. In the words of the Energy Information Agency (part of the U.S. Department of Energy), "oil prices are determined on the international market...any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."
But if you're going to propose a completely useless energy policy solely to paint the other candidate as an environmentalist elitist, go all out. I hear clubbing baby seals can reduce gas prices by 87% (it's a psychological effect).
Sunday, August 17, 2008
What good are Pundits, anyways?
Steven Stark. I want you to look at yourself in the mirror.
Take a good, long, hard look. I want you to ask yourself this question, and really think about it-- What good does your column do for voters? And let's be intellectually honest about it.
The horse race style "coverage" is handled well enough my the corporate media. Do you really think that your stats and pontifications-- which seem to be nothing more than a redux of 24 hour news network coverage-- adds anything of any value to the mix?
Does it benefit the voters, most of whom don't even understand what Single Payer Healthcare is, and have never even heard of HR 676, yet know the very real pain and frustration of being denied vital life-saving coverage by their health insurance corporation?
Does your column help us to understand the platforms of the candidates? Does it help us to understand the root causes of the issues that we face in our daily lives?
Does your column help us to stop the killing by allowing the voting populace to know the details of the exit strategies of all candidates? (Obama and McCain both want to leave troops in Iraq permanently, for instance.)
Telling us which demographics the Big Two politicians are polling well with-- does this give us the tools we need to make an informed decision about which candidate matches our own personal platforms?
Rehashing polls done by corporate-owned news media, with margins of error large enough that they are statistically insignificant, does not aid the average voter who is struggling to pay the bills and is looking for real solutions to the problems they face in their life. Most Americans really don't care that you've decided who is going to win.
So, I'll ask again, and I hope you do as well: What PURPOSE does your column serve?
It's nothing more than an empty hall of mirrors. You, telling us, what we are supposedly telling you, that we're thinking. Why not give us something to think ABOUT?
The inane fluff you publish as a pundit distracts from the fact that there's a WAR going on-- with over a million innocent Iraqi's and over 4,000 US soldiers dead, that the US Gov't is trillions of dollars in debt, that we have a growing trade deficit with just about everybody, that the Federal Reserve is destroying the power of the US dollar, and that in America NINE TIMES the number of people who died on 9-11 die EVERY YEAR simply because they lack access to adequate health care, or were denied coverage by their insurance provider.
What are the candidates going to do about any of this? Regarding health care, both McCain and Obama both want to put your tax dollars directly in the pocket of health insurance corporations-- who play a middle man between you and your doctor, telling you what treatments your doctor can give you, not for your own health, but for the health of their shareholder's stock returns. But of course, you're not going to let us know about that. You're just going to tell us what we think about gaffes, petty branding disputes (Change? Hope? Puppies? Apple Pie?) and other such drama more appropriate to high school lunchrooms. Actually, I take that back. Your average high school student probably cares more about the platforms of the candidates than your average pundit.
You pundits chase after us, wondering what we are thinking and who we
are going to vote for so that you can make accurate predictions about
how we're going to vote, and you have nothing to offer but intellectual
cotton candy-- light, fluffy, no substance, no nutritious value, and
likely to cause tooth decay.
Only it's our society that is decaying.
Thank you Steven Stark for your contribution to the downfall of Democracy.
Or inversely, your total lack of any contribution whatsoever to a well informed voting population.
Asher Platts
Gorham, Maine
punk_patriot411@yahoo.com
207-776-5448
You can write Steven Stark yourself at sds@starkwriting.com
Take a good, long, hard look. I want you to ask yourself this question, and really think about it-- What good does your column do for voters? And let's be intellectually honest about it.
The horse race style "coverage" is handled well enough my the corporate media. Do you really think that your stats and pontifications-- which seem to be nothing more than a redux of 24 hour news network coverage-- adds anything of any value to the mix?
Does it benefit the voters, most of whom don't even understand what Single Payer Healthcare is, and have never even heard of HR 676, yet know the very real pain and frustration of being denied vital life-saving coverage by their health insurance corporation?
Does your column help us to understand the platforms of the candidates? Does it help us to understand the root causes of the issues that we face in our daily lives?
Does your column help us to stop the killing by allowing the voting populace to know the details of the exit strategies of all candidates? (Obama and McCain both want to leave troops in Iraq permanently, for instance.)
Telling us which demographics the Big Two politicians are polling well with-- does this give us the tools we need to make an informed decision about which candidate matches our own personal platforms?
Rehashing polls done by corporate-owned news media, with margins of error large enough that they are statistically insignificant, does not aid the average voter who is struggling to pay the bills and is looking for real solutions to the problems they face in their life. Most Americans really don't care that you've decided who is going to win.
So, I'll ask again, and I hope you do as well: What PURPOSE does your column serve?
It's nothing more than an empty hall of mirrors. You, telling us, what we are supposedly telling you, that we're thinking. Why not give us something to think ABOUT?
The inane fluff you publish as a pundit distracts from the fact that there's a WAR going on-- with over a million innocent Iraqi's and over 4,000 US soldiers dead, that the US Gov't is trillions of dollars in debt, that we have a growing trade deficit with just about everybody, that the Federal Reserve is destroying the power of the US dollar, and that in America NINE TIMES the number of people who died on 9-11 die EVERY YEAR simply because they lack access to adequate health care, or were denied coverage by their insurance provider.
What are the candidates going to do about any of this? Regarding health care, both McCain and Obama both want to put your tax dollars directly in the pocket of health insurance corporations-- who play a middle man between you and your doctor, telling you what treatments your doctor can give you, not for your own health, but for the health of their shareholder's stock returns. But of course, you're not going to let us know about that. You're just going to tell us what we think about gaffes, petty branding disputes (Change? Hope? Puppies? Apple Pie?) and other such drama more appropriate to high school lunchrooms. Actually, I take that back. Your average high school student probably cares more about the platforms of the candidates than your average pundit.
You pundits chase after us, wondering what we are thinking and who we
are going to vote for so that you can make accurate predictions about
how we're going to vote, and you have nothing to offer but intellectual
cotton candy-- light, fluffy, no substance, no nutritious value, and
likely to cause tooth decay.
Only it's our society that is decaying.
Thank you Steven Stark for your contribution to the downfall of Democracy.
Or inversely, your total lack of any contribution whatsoever to a well informed voting population.
Asher Platts
Gorham, Maine
punk_patriot411@yahoo.com
207-776-5448
You can write Steven Stark yourself at sds@starkwriting.com
Friday, August 15, 2008
Pelosi Book Tour becomes, "WHY HAVEN'T YOU IMPEACHED?!" tour
New York Times
Vote this up on Current.com
WASHINGTON -- When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set out to promote her new motivational book this month, she simultaneously touched off her national why-haven't-you-impeached-the-president tour.
As she made the coast-to-coast rounds of lectures, television interviews and radio chats the past two weeks, Ms. Pelosi found herself under siege by people unhappy that she has not been motivated to try to throw President Bush out of office – even if only a few months remain before he leaves voluntarily.
In Manhattan and Los Angeles, at stops in between, on network television and on her home turf of Northern California, Ms. Pelosi has been forced to defend her pronouncement before the 2006 mid-term elections that impeachment over the administration’s push for war in Iraq was off the table.
Pressed on ABC’s “The View” about whether she had unilaterally disarmed, the author of “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters” said she believed the proceedings would be too divisive and be a distraction from advancing the policy agenda of the new Democratic majority.
Then she added this qualifier: “If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.”
That assertion only threw fuel on the impeachment fire as advocates of removing Mr. Bush cited the 35 articles of impeachment compiled by Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, as well as accusations in a new book by author Ron Suskind of White House orders to falsify intelligence, an accusation that has been denied.
“There’s an opportunity now for us to come forward and to lay all the facts out so that she can reconsider her decision not to permit the Judiciary Committee to proceed with a full impeachment hearing,” Mr. Kucinich said in an interview with the Web site Democracy Now!
Mr. Kucinich, long a proponent of starting hearings to impeach both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, earlier this week applauded signals that the Judiciary Committee would look into the claims made by Mr. Suskind in his book.
While the Judiciary Committee might do exactly that, the chances that such an inquiry would culminate in an impeachment proceeding are, according to top Democratic officials, virtually nil.
At the moment, the House is officially scheduled to meet for less than three weeks in September before adjourning for the elections and perhaps the year – hardly enough time to mount an impeachment spectacle even if top Democratic lawmakers wanted one.
And they do not.
Despite whatever resonance pursuing the president might have in progressive Democratic circles, it is not the message Democrats want to carry into an election where they need to appeal to swing voters to increase their Congressional majorities and win the White House. They would rather devote their final weeks to pushing economic relief and health care, even if they thought Mr. Bush and the conduct of the war merited impeachment hearings.
And leading Democrats argue anyway that Mr. Bush has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.
“He has been impeached by current history,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “He is going down as the worst president ever. The facts are in.”
Republicans have previously shown some appetite for luring Democrats into what they see as an impeachment trap, a set of hearings they could use to portray Democrats as bitter partisans. But Republican strategists also recognize the political danger in getting too deep in defending Mr. Bush right before the election or in justifying the buildup to the Iraq war. They might not be as eager as they once were for an impeachment fight.
Both parties know full well that the Republican push to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998 did not work out for Republicans in the way they had hoped, giving many lawmakers pause when it comes to gaming out the political ups and downs of such an action.
The impeachment unrest among progressives dovetails with their profound disappointment that Democrats failed to cut off spending for the war in Iraq or impose a timetable for withdrawal after winning control of Congress in 2006. It is a disappointment that Ms. Pelosi has acknowledged she shares and one she attributes to the thin Democratic majority in the Senate and Republican determination to support Mr. Bush on the war, explanations that do not mollify staunch anti-war activists.
The disillusionment has crystallized in a challenger for Ms. Pelosi in the person of Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist whose son was killed in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan and her allies collected more than 17,000 signatures to qualify her as an independent for the November ballot in San Francisco.
While Ms. Pelosi has been navigating the impeachment issue on her book tour, House Republicans have been assailing her on the floor for refusing to allow a vote on lifting a ban on oil drilling along much of the nation’s coast. Democrats are back-tracking a bit on that stance, opening the door to a September vote on relaxing the restrictions on drilling as part of a broader energy bill that would also include Democratic initiatives to reduce subsidies for oil companies and encourage more use of natural gas.
These have not been easy weeks for Ms. Pelosi as she juggled promoting her book with defending her impeachment stance and fending off the Republicans. But party strategists say she’s in a strong enough political position to weather the attacks, while taking some of the political heat off more vulnerable Democrats. She might be under fire from the left and the right, but there is no talk of impeaching her.
Vote this up on Current.com
WASHINGTON -- When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set out to promote her new motivational book this month, she simultaneously touched off her national why-haven't-you-impeached-the-president tour.
As she made the coast-to-coast rounds of lectures, television interviews and radio chats the past two weeks, Ms. Pelosi found herself under siege by people unhappy that she has not been motivated to try to throw President Bush out of office – even if only a few months remain before he leaves voluntarily.
In Manhattan and Los Angeles, at stops in between, on network television and on her home turf of Northern California, Ms. Pelosi has been forced to defend her pronouncement before the 2006 mid-term elections that impeachment over the administration’s push for war in Iraq was off the table.
Pressed on ABC’s “The View” about whether she had unilaterally disarmed, the author of “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters” said she believed the proceedings would be too divisive and be a distraction from advancing the policy agenda of the new Democratic majority.
Then she added this qualifier: “If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.”
That assertion only threw fuel on the impeachment fire as advocates of removing Mr. Bush cited the 35 articles of impeachment compiled by Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, as well as accusations in a new book by author Ron Suskind of White House orders to falsify intelligence, an accusation that has been denied.
“There’s an opportunity now for us to come forward and to lay all the facts out so that she can reconsider her decision not to permit the Judiciary Committee to proceed with a full impeachment hearing,” Mr. Kucinich said in an interview with the Web site Democracy Now!
Mr. Kucinich, long a proponent of starting hearings to impeach both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, earlier this week applauded signals that the Judiciary Committee would look into the claims made by Mr. Suskind in his book.
While the Judiciary Committee might do exactly that, the chances that such an inquiry would culminate in an impeachment proceeding are, according to top Democratic officials, virtually nil.
At the moment, the House is officially scheduled to meet for less than three weeks in September before adjourning for the elections and perhaps the year – hardly enough time to mount an impeachment spectacle even if top Democratic lawmakers wanted one.
And they do not.
Despite whatever resonance pursuing the president might have in progressive Democratic circles, it is not the message Democrats want to carry into an election where they need to appeal to swing voters to increase their Congressional majorities and win the White House. They would rather devote their final weeks to pushing economic relief and health care, even if they thought Mr. Bush and the conduct of the war merited impeachment hearings.
And leading Democrats argue anyway that Mr. Bush has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.
“He has been impeached by current history,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “He is going down as the worst president ever. The facts are in.”
Republicans have previously shown some appetite for luring Democrats into what they see as an impeachment trap, a set of hearings they could use to portray Democrats as bitter partisans. But Republican strategists also recognize the political danger in getting too deep in defending Mr. Bush right before the election or in justifying the buildup to the Iraq war. They might not be as eager as they once were for an impeachment fight.
Both parties know full well that the Republican push to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998 did not work out for Republicans in the way they had hoped, giving many lawmakers pause when it comes to gaming out the political ups and downs of such an action.
The impeachment unrest among progressives dovetails with their profound disappointment that Democrats failed to cut off spending for the war in Iraq or impose a timetable for withdrawal after winning control of Congress in 2006. It is a disappointment that Ms. Pelosi has acknowledged she shares and one she attributes to the thin Democratic majority in the Senate and Republican determination to support Mr. Bush on the war, explanations that do not mollify staunch anti-war activists.
The disillusionment has crystallized in a challenger for Ms. Pelosi in the person of Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist whose son was killed in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan and her allies collected more than 17,000 signatures to qualify her as an independent for the November ballot in San Francisco.
While Ms. Pelosi has been navigating the impeachment issue on her book tour, House Republicans have been assailing her on the floor for refusing to allow a vote on lifting a ban on oil drilling along much of the nation’s coast. Democrats are back-tracking a bit on that stance, opening the door to a September vote on relaxing the restrictions on drilling as part of a broader energy bill that would also include Democratic initiatives to reduce subsidies for oil companies and encourage more use of natural gas.
These have not been easy weeks for Ms. Pelosi as she juggled promoting her book with defending her impeachment stance and fending off the Republicans. But party strategists say she’s in a strong enough political position to weather the attacks, while taking some of the political heat off more vulnerable Democrats. She might be under fire from the left and the right, but there is no talk of impeaching her.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Russia close to war
Russia and Georgia Clash Over Separatist Region
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ, ANNE BARNARD and C. J. CHIVERS
Published: August 8, 2008
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ, ANNE BARNARD and C. J. CHIVERS
Published: August 8, 2008
GORI, Georgia — Russia conducted airstrikes on Georgian targets on Friday evening, escalating the conflict in a separatist area of Georgia that is shaping into a test of the power and military reach of an emboldened Kremlin. Earlier in the day, Russian troops and armored vehicles had rolled into South Ossetia, supporting the breakaway region in its bitter conflict with Georgia.
The United States and other Western nations, joined by NATO, condemned the violence and demanded a cease-fire. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went a step further, calling on Russia to withdraw its forces. But the Russian soldiers remained, and Georgian officials reported at least one airstrike, on the Black Sea port of Poti, late on Friday night.
Russian military units — including tank, artillery and reconnaissance — arrived in Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, on Saturday to help Russian peacekeepers there, in response to overnight shelling by Georgian forces, state television in Russia reported, citing the Ministry of Defense. Ground assault aircraft were also mobilized, the Ministry said.
Also on Saturday a senior Georgian official said by telephone that Russian bombers were flying over Georgia and that the presidential offices and residence in Tbilisi had been evacuated. The official added that Georgian forces still had control of Tskhinvali.
Neither side showed any indication of backing down. Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia declared that “war has started,” and President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia accused Russia of a “well-planned invasion” and mobilized Georgia’s military reserves. There were signs as well of a cyberwarfare campaign, as Georgian government Web sites were crashing intermittently during the day.
The escalation risked igniting a renewed and sustained conflict in the Caucasus region, an important conduit for the flow of oil from the Caspian Sea to world markets and an area where conflict has flared for years along Russia’s borders, most recently in Chechnya.
The military incursion into Georgia marked a fresh sign of Kremlin confidence and resolve, and also provided a test of the capacities of the Russian military, which Mr. Putin had tried to modernize and re-equip during his two presidential terms.
Frictions between Georgia and South Ossetia, which has declared de facto independence, have simmered for years, but intensified when Mr. Saakashvili came to power in Georgia and made national unification a centerpiece of his agenda. Mr. Saakashvili, a close American ally who has sought NATO membership for Georgia, is loathed at the Kremlin in part because he had positioned himself as a spokesman for democracy movements and alignment with the West.
Earlier this year Russia announced that it was expanding support for the separatist regions. Georgia labeled the new support an act of annexation.
The conflict in Georgia also appeared to suggest the limits of the power of President Dmitri A. Medvedev, Mr. Putin’s hand-picked successor. During the day, it was Mr. Putin’s stern statements from China, where he was visiting the opening of the Olympic Games, that appeared to define Russia’s position.
But Mr. Medvedev made a public statement as well, making it unclear who was directing Russia’s military operations. Officially, that authority rests with Mr. Medvedev, and foreign policy is outside Mr. Putin’s portfolio.
“The war in Ossetia instantly showed the idiocy of our state management,” said a commentator on the liberal radio station, Ekho Moskvy. “Who is in charge — Putin or Medvedev?”
The war between Georgia and South Ossetia, until recently labeled a “frozen conflict,” stretches back to the early 1990s, when South Ossetia and another separatist region, Abkhazia, gained de facto independence from Georgia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The region settled into a tenuous peace monitored by Russian peacekeepers, but frictions with Georgia increased sharply in 2004, when Mr. Saakashvili was elected.
Reports conflicted throughout Friday about whether Georgian or Russian forces had won control of Tskhinvali, the capital of the mountainous rebel province. It was unclear late on Friday whether ground combat had taken place between Russian and Georgian soldiers, or had been limited to fighting between separatists and Georgian forces.
Marat Kulakhmetov, commander of Russian peacekeeping forces in Tskhinvali, said early on Saturday that South Ossetian separatists still held most of the city and that Georgian forces were only present on its southern edge.
That report aligned with a statement by Georgia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Irakli Alasania, who said that Georgian military units held eight villages at the capital’s edge. Georgian officials asserted that Russian warplanes had attacked Georgian forces and civilians in Tskhinvali, and that airports in four Georgian cities had been hit. Shota Utiashvili, an official at the Georgian Interior Ministry, said they included the Vaziany military base outside of Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, a military base in Marneuli, and airports in the cities of Delisi and Kutaisi.
Late in the night, George Arveladze, an adviser to Mr. Saakashvili, said that Russian planes had bombed the commercial seaport of Poti, where one worker was missing and several others were wounded. Poti is an export point for oil from the Caspian Sea; Mr. Arveladze said the initial reports indicated that the oil terminal had not been struck.
Eduard Kokoity, the president of South Ossetia, said in a statement on a government Web site that hundreds of civilians had been killed in fighting in the capital. Russian peacekeepers stationed in South Ossetia said that 12 peacekeeping soldiers were killed Friday and that 50 were wounded. The claims of casualties by all sides could not be independently verified.
Analysts said that either Georgia or Russia could be trying to seize an opportune moment — with world leaders focused on the start of the 2008 Olympics this week — to reclaim the territory, and to settle the dispute before a new American presidential administration comes to office.
Richard C. Holbrooke, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, said that Russia’s aims were clear. “They have two goals,” he said. “To do a creeping annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and, secondly, to overthrow Saakashvili, who is a tremendous thorn in their side.”
A spokesman for Mr. Medvedev declined to comment.
The United States State Department issued a press release late Friday saying that John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, had summoned the Russian chargé d’affairs to press for a de-escalation of force. “We deplore today’s Russian attacks by strategic bombers and missiles, which are threatening civilian lives,” the statement said.
The United States also said Friday that it would send an envoy to the region to try to broker an end to the fighting.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany issued a statement calling on both sides “to halt the use of force immediately.” Germany has taken a leading role in trying to ease the tensions over Abkhazia.
The trigger for the fresh escalation began last weekend, when South Ossetia accused Georgia of firing mortars into the enclave after six Georgian policemen were killed in the border area by a roadside bomb. As tensions grew, South Ossetia began sending women and children out of the enclave. The refugee crisis intensified Friday as relief groups said thousands of refugees, mostly women and children, were streaming across the border into the North Caucasus city of Vladikavkaz in Russia.
Early on Friday, Russia’s Channel One television showed Russian tanks entering South Ossetia and reported that two battalions reinforced by tanks and armored personnel carriers were approaching its capital.
There were unconfirmed reports that Georgian forces had shot down two Russian planes and that its aircraft had bombed a convoy of Russian tanks. Russian state television showed what it said was a destroyed Georgian tank in Tskhinvali, its turret smoldering.
Women and children in Tskhinvali were hiding in basements while men had fled to the woods, said a woman reached by telephone in the neighboring Russian region of North Ossetia, who said she had been in phone contact with relatives there. She declined to give her name.
In Gori, a city outside South Ossetia and about 12 miles from Tskhinvali, residents said there had been sporadic bombing all day. The city was shaken by numerous vibrations from the impact of bombs on Friday evening. One Russian bomb exploded in Gori near a textile factory and a cellphone tower, leaving a crater.
At the United Nations on Friday, diplomats continued to wrangle over the text of a statement after attempts to agree to compromise language collapsed Friday afternoon, after nearly three hours of consultations.
The Russians, who had called the emergency session, proposed a short, three-paragraph statement that expressed concern about the escalating violence, and singled out Georgia and South Ossetia as needing to cease hostilities and return to the negotiating table.
But one phrase calling on all parties to “renounce the use of force” met with opposition, particularly from the United States, France and Britain. The three countries argued that the statement was unbalanced, one European diplomat said, because that language would have undermined Georgia’s ability to defend itself. Belgium, which holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council this month, circulated a revised draft calling for an immediate cessation of hostility and for “all parties” to return to the negotiating table. By dropping the specific reference to Georgia and South Ossetia, the compromise statement would also encompass Russia.
The Security Council was scheduled to meet Saturday to resume deliberations. China, in its statement during the early morning debate, had asked for a traditional cease-fire out of respect for the opening of the Olympics.
President Bush discussed the conflict by telephone with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, for about an hour after attending the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, the White House press secretary, Dana M. Perino said. Mr. Bush held another conference with Mr. Hadley and his deputy, James Jeffery, on Saturday morning before attending beach volleyball practice.
There are over 2,000 American citizens in Georgia, Pentagon officials said. Among them are about 130 trainers — mostly American military personnel but with about 30 Defense Department civilians —assisting the Georgian military with preparations for deployments to Iraq.
The American military was taking no actions regarding the outbreak of violence, according to Pentagon and military officials. While there has been some contact with the Georgian authorities, the Defense Department had received no requests for assistance, the officials said.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Cheney Provoking war with Iran
Speaking at the Campus Progress journalism conference earlier this month, Seymour Hersh — a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker — revealed that Bush administration officials held a meeting recently in the Vice President’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran.
There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.
Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.
Right to Privacy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25978344
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9892897-38.html
Customs officials have been stepping up electronic searches of laptops at the border, where travelers enjoy little privacy and have no legal grounds to object. Laptops and other electronic devices can be seized without reason, their contents copied, and the hardware returned hours or even weeks later.
Executives have been told that they must hand over their laptop to be analyzed by border police--or be barred from boarding their flight. A report from a U.S.-based marijuana activist says U.S. border guards browsed through her laptop's contents; British customs agents scan laptops for sexual material; so do their U.S. counterparts.
These procedures are entirely legal, according to court precedents so far. A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that an in-depth analysis of a laptop's hard drive using the EnCase forensics software "was permissible without probable cause or a warrant under the border search doctrine." One lawsuit is seeking to force the government to disclose what policies it follows.
The information security implications are worrisome. Sensitive business documents can be stored in computers; lawyers may have notes protected by the attorney-client privilege; and journalists may save notes about confidential sources. Regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley may apply. A 2006 survey of business travelers showed that almost 90 percent of them didn't know that customs officials can peruse the contents of laptops and confiscate them without giving a reason.
Antrax
This bullshit is propaganda in it's worst form.
Officials: Anthrax suspect obsessed with sorority
If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, is it an elephant in the room?
Officials: Anthrax suspect obsessed with sorority
By LARA JAKES JORDAN and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writers 57 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The top suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks was obsessed with a sorority that sat less than 100 yards away from a New Jersey mailbox where the toxin-laced letters were sent, authorities said Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Multiple U.S. officials told The Associated Press that former Army scientist Bruce Ivins was long obsessed with the sorority Kappa Kappa Gamma, going back as far as his own college days at the University of Cincinnati.
The officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly.
The bizarre link to the sorority may indirectly explain one of the biggest mysteries in the case: why the anthrax was mailed from Princeton, N.J., 195 miles from the Army biological weapons lab the anthrax is believed to have been smuggled out of.
An adviser to the Kappa Kappa Gamma chapter at Princeton University confirmed she was interviewed by the FBI in connection with the case.
U.S. officials said e-mails or other documents detail Ivins' long-standing fixation on the sorority. His former therapist has said Ivins plotted revenge against those who have slighted him, particularly women. There is nothing to indicate, however, he was focused on any one sorority member or other Princeton student, the officials said.
Despite the connection between Ivins and the sorority, authorities acknowledge they cannot place the scientist in Princeton the day the anthrax was mailed. That remains a hole in the government's case. Had Ivins not killed himself last week, authorities would have argued he could have made the seven-hour round trip to Princeton after work.
Ivins' attorney, Paul F. Kemp, did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment Monday but has asserted his client's innocence and said he would have been vindicated in court.
Katherine Breckinridge Graham, a Kappa alumna who serves as an adviser to the sorority's Princeton chapter, said Monday she was interviewed by FBI agents "over the last couple of years" about the case. She said she could not provide any details about the interview because she signed an FBI nondisclosure form.
However, Graham said there was nothing to indicate that any of the sorority members had anything to do with Ivins.
"Nothing odd went on," said Graham, an attorney.
Kappa Kappa Gamma executive director Lauren Paitson, reached at the sorority's headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, initially told an AP reporter Monday afternoon she would provide a comment shortly. She did not answer subsequent phone messages or e-mails seeking a response.
Some of the scientist's friends and former co-workers have reacted with skepticism as details about the investigation surfaced. They questioned whether Ivins had the motive to unleash such an attack and whether he could have secretly created the powder form of the deadly toxin without co-workers noticing.
Princeton University referred questions about Ivins to the FBI. The university does not formally recognize sororities and fraternities but chapters operate off campus.
Local police in both Princeton Borough and Princeton Township said Ivins' name did not turn up on any incident reports or restraining orders.
Kappa Kappa Gamma also has chapters at nearby colleges in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Washington. One official said investigators were working off the theory that Ivins chose to mail the letters from the Princeton chapter to confuse investigators if he ever were to emerge as a suspect in the case.
Five people died and 17 others sickened by the anthrax plot, which was launched on the heels of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
The following August, investigators announced they'd found anthrax spores inside the mailbox on Nassau Street, the town's main thoroughfare. FBI agents immediately began canvassing the town, showing residents a photograph of Army scientist Steven J. Hatfill, who at the time was a key "person of interest" in the case.
That theory fell flat and this June, the Justice Department exonerated Hatfill and agreed to a $5.8 million settlement with him.
In the past year, the FBI has turned a close eye on Ivins, whom a therapist said had a history of homicidal and sociopathic behavior. Prosecutors had planned to indict Ivins and seek the death penalty but, knowing investigators were closing in, he killed himself with an overdose of acetaminophen, the key ingredient in Tylenol.
With its top suspect now dead, the Justice Department is considering closing the "Amerithrax" investigations. It has been among the FBI's most publicized unsolved cases and, if it is closed, authorities are expected to unseal court documents that outline much of their case against Ivins.
If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, is it an elephant in the room?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
WTO Talks Collapse Amidst Developing Countries' Reluctance to Sacrifice Food Security
Last Minute Attempt to Push Through a WTO Expansion "Deal" Fails
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Despite trade ministers' hopes for a last-minute deal, World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations collapsed yet again today, and observers at the talks in Geneva say that the failure is not surprising, given the reluctance of India and other developing nations to sacrifice food security measures in the wake of the recent global spike in food prices.
"Given what's been on the table, no deal is better than a bad deal. A Doha conclusion would have had major negative impacts for workers and farmers in developing countries. The tariff cuts demanded of developing countries would have caused massive job loss, and countries would have lost the ability to protect farmers from dumping, further impoverishing millions on the verge of survival," said Deborah James, Director of International Programs for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who has been observing the talks in Geneva.
It is unclear why negotiations were proceeding, given the fact that the U.S. delegation does not have a mandate to conclude negotiations, as made clear by a letter from Senators Feingold and Byrd sent to President Bush last week. In addition, cuts in subsidies agreed to by the U.S. are also incompatible with the new U.S. Farm Bill passed by Congress, and over-riding a veto by President Bush.
Many developing nations not invited to participate in the exclusive "Green Room" meetings in Geneva this past week are likely to continue strong opposition to a deal in the midst of a global economic downturn and increasing concerns over food security.
At a time when many countries are seeking to reduce dependence on troubled economies in the U.S. and Europe, and as fears of a global recession loom, many nations are questioning the development gains to be achieved from trade liberalization. The projected gains from the Doha Round offer developing countries very little in potential gains. According to World Bank modeling, developing country benefits would be just 16 percent of total world gains, or 0.16 per cent of GDP. This works out to less than a penny per day per capita in the developing world. Poverty reduction - which in itself would be very limited - would reach only 2.5 million people.[1] These projections do not include many of the costs of implementing the Doha Round, which UNCTAD estimates to be as much as four times the projected gains.
The Doha Round could also increase world prices for food.[2] Since most developing countries are net food importers, the recent increase in food prices has led some developing country governments to reconsider food security mechanisms such as tariffs and domestic subsidies, which the WTO seeks to reduce. A number of countries have also imposed restrictions on exports, in response to the food crisis.
"There just hasn't been much to gain for developing countries in this round - or for that matter, the majority of people even in the rich countries," said CEPR Co-Director and economist, Mark Weisbrot. "The attempts by the rich countries to reduce policy space for developing countries in manufacturing are widely seen as 'kicking away the ladder' that rich countries like the United States used when they were developing countries.
"The whole process of subordinating national policy to special commercial interests - whether in agriculture, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals (one of the most powerful interests and gainers in the WTO), or the financial sector - has gone way too far. Growth and development in most countries has been hurt, and they are pushing back. In the United States, too, rising inequality and now an economic downturn have provoked a backlash."
Throughout the negotiations, some developing nations promoted trade policies and objectives at odds with the Doha Round's objectives of opening developing country markets, including commitments to food sovereignty and defending policy space for alternative forms of economic development.
In a written statement, Bolivian president Evo Morales said that, "The WTO negotiations have turned into a fight by developed countries to open markets in developing countries to favor their big companies."
[1] Kevin P. Gallagher and Timothy A. Wise, "Back to the Drawing Board: No Basis for Concluding the Doha Round of Negotiations". Research and Information System for Developing Countries Issue Brief. No. 36, April 2008.
[2] Sandra Polaski, "Winners and Losers: Impact of the Doha Round on Developing Countries". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 2006.
--CEPR press release, July 29, 2008
The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. CEPR's Advisory Board of Economists includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University; and Eileen Appelbaum, Professor and Director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/fears-of-a-shutdown-2008-07-30.html
Who the hell /hasn't/ figured out that if we use offshore drilling that it won't affect gas prices and it's all about putting money into the coffers of the corporations?
Fears of a shutdown
Posted: 07/30/08 07:56 PM [ET] The prospect of a September government shutdown loomed over the Capitol on Wednesday as the two parties fought over rising energy prices.
It’s a fight some members of either party are willing to have, but others worry about who will get blamed for a repeat of the 1995 shutdown that President Clinton pinned on a Republican Congress.
Lawmakers and staff are starting to talk not just about how to avoid such a repeat, but also about who would gain and lose November election votes if it happened.“The Democrats will probably want to play chicken,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).
Senate Republicans debated strategy at a party lunch Wednesday, discussing whether they should block a continuing resolution (CR) that must pass in September if the government is to continue functioning, according to lawmakers who attended.
The moratorium on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) has been renewed annually for decades in spending bills by Republican and Democratic presidents and Congresses.
Since Democratic leaders this year are not planning to pass most of the individual spending bills, Congress will have to pass a CR to keep government functioning past Sept. 30.
Usually, such resolutions pass easily. But this year, soaring gas prices have changed the political calculus and Republicans have decided the issue might rescue them at the polls. Republican leaders say Congress should not leave for the August recess without taking a vote on drilling.
Republicans would likely have to make the first move by filibustering a bill, or by President Bush vetoing a spending bill. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said he doesn’t think the GOP would go through with it.
“I believe the Republican Party would be risking even more wrath of the American people than they’ve gotten so far,” said Van Hollen, who’s in charge of electing more Democratic House members this fall. “I think the people on the Republican side will pull back.”
The White House also brushed off the possibility of a shutdown, emphasizing that it’s Democrats who control whether there’s a vote on offshore drilling.
“We’ll try to be hopeful that Democrats will do their job by passing appropriations bills and do what the American people want them to do by allowing drilling, and try not to speculate on what might happen if they fail on both of those,” said White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore.
Bush rescinded the executive order banning offshore drilling, but Congress must also act to open the waters to exploration. Bush on Wednesday again called on Congress to lift the moratorium.
But he’s never threatened a veto of a bill with the moratorium included in it.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime opponent of offshore drilling, has called the notion that expanded drilling would ease prices at the pump a “hoax.”
Who the hell /hasn't/ figured out that if we use offshore drilling that it won't affect gas prices and it's all about putting money into the coffers of the corporations?
Monday, July 28, 2008
Housing Bailout Bill
WATCH THIS
http://current.com/items/89132048_housing_bailout_bill_another_800_billion_gift_from_the_taxpayer_to_wall_street
http://current.com/items/89132048_housing_bailout_bill_another_800_billion_gift_from_the_taxpayer_to_wall_street
Friday, July 25, 2008
Cuban Missile Crisis: Version 2.0 - Now with more douchebaggery!
In 1962 Russia place missiles in Cuba stating that they were only to add to Cuba's defense. (Admittedly not entirely unwarranted as the United States had attempted a coup d'tat on the Cuban government not too long before during the Bay of Pigs incident.) This was in response to the United States placing nuclear capable missiles in Turkey, and was one of times during the Cold War that there was a distinct fear of nuclear warfare.
Part of the problem was also the presence of missiles in Turkey, which needless to say made the Russians a bit unhappy.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world had ever come to nuclear war. In order to abate this crisis the United States pulled the missiles out of Turkey, and Khrushchev dismantled the nukes in Cuba.
Now, fast forward about fifty years. So, sometime around the 14th of this month the US was told by Russia that if they continued trying to place a missile shield in the Czech Republic that Russia would respond with force. In a Russian newspaper called the Kremlin (considered very close to the government of Russia but the Russian administration denies that their hands are tied to the story), Russia contemplates using Cuba as a veritable staging ground for nuclear missiles.
The United States claims that the reason that they want to have a Star Wars defense stationed in the Czech Republic is protection from Iran and their nuclear capabilities, it's also been proven long before this month that Iran simply does not have nuclear capabilities. Iran stopped uranium enrichment four years ago.
If the United States discontinues the Star Wars program, what effect will that have for the possibility of war with Iran? Why was this administration choosing now of all times to build it up, and why did Russia step in to stop it?
History, it seems, is a tool just sharp enough for this administration to impale itself on.
Under the authority entrusted to me by the Constitution as endorse by the resolution of Congress:
It shall be the policy of this nation that any launch from Cuba on any nation in the western hemisphere will be consisted an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States requiring a full retaliatory response on the Soviet Union
I call on Chairman Khrushchev to halt and eliminate this clandestine reckless and provocative threat to world peace and the stable relationship between our two nations. I call on him further to abandon course of world domination and adjoin in a historic effort to end the perilous arms race and to transform the history of man
Part of the problem was also the presence of missiles in Turkey, which needless to say made the Russians a bit unhappy.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world had ever come to nuclear war. In order to abate this crisis the United States pulled the missiles out of Turkey, and Khrushchev dismantled the nukes in Cuba.
Now, fast forward about fifty years. So, sometime around the 14th of this month the US was told by Russia that if they continued trying to place a missile shield in the Czech Republic that Russia would respond with force. In a Russian newspaper called the Kremlin (considered very close to the government of Russia but the Russian administration denies that their hands are tied to the story), Russia contemplates using Cuba as a veritable staging ground for nuclear missiles.
The United States claims that the reason that they want to have a Star Wars defense stationed in the Czech Republic is protection from Iran and their nuclear capabilities, it's also been proven long before this month that Iran simply does not have nuclear capabilities. Iran stopped uranium enrichment four years ago.
If the United States discontinues the Star Wars program, what effect will that have for the possibility of war with Iran? Why was this administration choosing now of all times to build it up, and why did Russia step in to stop it?
History, it seems, is a tool just sharp enough for this administration to impale itself on.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Ja, wir können
So, Barack Obama gave his big speech today in Berlin. This aroused memories for many of the Cold War-era speeches given there by both Presidents Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy. ABCNews has the scoop on the transcript (in about 4 pages), if you are like me and you don't have TV, or you just want to skip the punditry:
No, I haven't read it yet. I figured I'd get the link/news up first. A good review probably demands its own entry anyhow.
I was expecting to post McCain's transcript as well later on, but it seems that flying out to a gulf oil rig during hurricane season turned out to not be the brilliant idea that he thought it would be. I actually think that this is probably better for his image anyhow: He's trying to distance himself from Big Oil and the Bush administration. It does absolutely no favors to that image to give a speech to a privileged selection of folk that have been selected to appear on a giant oil well with him.
Here's an idea, Sen. McCain: fly out to West Texas and give an energy independence speech against the backdrop of the Rocky Mountains and the numerous windmill generators out there. Organize bussing to get an audience out there to listen. Then maybe, just maybe, I will actually believe that you are serious.
Additionally, another happening today that should bring up nostalgic memories of the Cold War (for those of us lucky to remember any of it):
As of now, however, Russia has not confirmed these rumors, and some officials have denied their validity. However, I find it an interesting coincidence that the Obama speech happened and this missle story broke on the same day.
For those interested, the title is "Yes We Can" run through the German translator at google.com.
No, I haven't read it yet. I figured I'd get the link/news up first. A good review probably demands its own entry anyhow.
I was expecting to post McCain's transcript as well later on, but it seems that flying out to a gulf oil rig during hurricane season turned out to not be the brilliant idea that he thought it would be. I actually think that this is probably better for his image anyhow: He's trying to distance himself from Big Oil and the Bush administration. It does absolutely no favors to that image to give a speech to a privileged selection of folk that have been selected to appear on a giant oil well with him.
Here's an idea, Sen. McCain: fly out to West Texas and give an energy independence speech against the backdrop of the Rocky Mountains and the numerous windmill generators out there. Organize bussing to get an audience out there to listen. Then maybe, just maybe, I will actually believe that you are serious.
Additionally, another happening today that should bring up nostalgic memories of the Cold War (for those of us lucky to remember any of it):
As of now, however, Russia has not confirmed these rumors, and some officials have denied their validity. However, I find it an interesting coincidence that the Obama speech happened and this missle story broke on the same day.
For those interested, the title is "Yes We Can" run through the German translator at google.com.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
I found out I was wiretapped: Some reflections
Here's the list of people who were illegally wiretapped.
I'm #1 on page six.
Apparently, they were recording my calls! Or at least one of them. I don't understand why, or how. I have AT&T and haven't ever called outside of the country that I can think of (it's really expensive).
Other friends of mine are also on the list.
I knew that Obama's vote was wrong before I knew I was illegally wiretapped.
But this morning, I called the ACLU to see what my legal rights were now, and because of Obama's vote (and others) for telecom immunity, I now have no legal recourse. I can't do anything about it. Nothing. They broke the law, my privacy was violated, and they're getting away with it.
Now that this affects me personally, and knowing that my right to recourse has been taken from me by Obama, I find it unconscionable to support Obama.
It strikes me as bizzare that friends of mine are saying to me, "Asher, I support your fight here, but I support Obama still. I totally agree with you though, his FISA vote was wrong."
From my perspective, I feel totally violated, and these shows of support for me mingled with shows of support for Obama totally baffle me.
How can people support him? It's like I was robbed, and people are saying, "yeah, it sucks that you were robbed, but you know, that guy who robbed you is cool, so I'm going to hang at his place for a party tonight."
People who are saying they support Obama but also support my fight against the FISA decision are liars. They've turned their backs on me, and everybody else who has had their privacy violated.
I have no faith in the Left-wing/progressive movement anymore. They're all so caught up in the Obama love-fest that they just don't realize what a terrible politician he really is.
The Left Wing is just as guilty of the same starry-eyed fervor that swept Bush into office. They will lie to themselves to fend off the truths that show how he is not what they think he is.
They believe whole heartedly in their candidate, they won't let facts get in the way.
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama is going to win this next election. We are going to see four more years of a Democratic George W Bush.
The Democratic Party is not an opposition party.
The Voters won't notice that they're being fed the same bull pie from both parties.
And for their lack of observation, they will get what they deserve.
I'm #1 on page six.
Apparently, they were recording my calls! Or at least one of them. I don't understand why, or how. I have AT&T and haven't ever called outside of the country that I can think of (it's really expensive).
Other friends of mine are also on the list.
I knew that Obama's vote was wrong before I knew I was illegally wiretapped.
But this morning, I called the ACLU to see what my legal rights were now, and because of Obama's vote (and others) for telecom immunity, I now have no legal recourse. I can't do anything about it. Nothing. They broke the law, my privacy was violated, and they're getting away with it.
Now that this affects me personally, and knowing that my right to recourse has been taken from me by Obama, I find it unconscionable to support Obama.
It strikes me as bizzare that friends of mine are saying to me, "Asher, I support your fight here, but I support Obama still. I totally agree with you though, his FISA vote was wrong."
From my perspective, I feel totally violated, and these shows of support for me mingled with shows of support for Obama totally baffle me.
How can people support him? It's like I was robbed, and people are saying, "yeah, it sucks that you were robbed, but you know, that guy who robbed you is cool, so I'm going to hang at his place for a party tonight."
People who are saying they support Obama but also support my fight against the FISA decision are liars. They've turned their backs on me, and everybody else who has had their privacy violated.
I have no faith in the Left-wing/progressive movement anymore. They're all so caught up in the Obama love-fest that they just don't realize what a terrible politician he really is.
The Left Wing is just as guilty of the same starry-eyed fervor that swept Bush into office. They will lie to themselves to fend off the truths that show how he is not what they think he is.
They believe whole heartedly in their candidate, they won't let facts get in the way.
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama is going to win this next election. We are going to see four more years of a Democratic George W Bush.
The Democratic Party is not an opposition party.
The Voters won't notice that they're being fed the same bull pie from both parties.
And for their lack of observation, they will get what they deserve.
I just found out that FISA affects me directly- I WAS WIRETAPPED
So I'm super, ultra, mega, pissed at Obama right now.
I am on the list of Maine residents who were illegally wiretapped by Verizon:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/220733/Verizon-Wiretapping-PUC-All-Names
I shit you not! Right there #1 on page 6!
The funny thing is, I am not only not a terrorist, but I also haven't placed any calls outside of the USA (it's too damned expensive.)
The NSA/FISA issue is obvious on it's face, but when it affects you personally, it takes you to a whole new level.
But then, all politics is personal right?
I called the MCLU, and because of the FISA vote, I currently have no rights to challenge this.
F**K YOU AND YOUR "COMPROMISE" Mr OBAMA.
This does it for me. Obama is a weak-willed traitor to the Constitution. I have no reason to beleive him when he takes his oath of office to protect and uphold the constitution-- his vote on FISA negates it fully.
It's sealed beyond a question of a doubt at this point-- I'm voting for Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney.
I am on the list of Maine residents who were illegally wiretapped by Verizon:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/220733/Verizon-Wiretapping-PUC-All-Names
I shit you not! Right there #1 on page 6!
The funny thing is, I am not only not a terrorist, but I also haven't placed any calls outside of the USA (it's too damned expensive.)
The NSA/FISA issue is obvious on it's face, but when it affects you personally, it takes you to a whole new level.
But then, all politics is personal right?
I called the MCLU, and because of the FISA vote, I currently have no rights to challenge this.
F**K YOU AND YOUR "COMPROMISE" Mr OBAMA.
This does it for me. Obama is a weak-willed traitor to the Constitution. I have no reason to beleive him when he takes his oath of office to protect and uphold the constitution-- his vote on FISA negates it fully.
It's sealed beyond a question of a doubt at this point-- I'm voting for Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Nickelodeon is Brain washing our Kids!
So the other day I was just hanging out watching a little TV. (After seeing this I remember why I usually stick to CSPAN.) I flipped on Nickelodeon just to see what crappy ass cartoons they are showing now days. (Long live Captain Planet and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!) Nickelodeon is now doing this whole "Kids Pick the President" thing.
Well this song came on talking about how we have real democracy in the USA.
Please tell me you are at least slightly disturbed.
After watching that, all I could think is, "I wonder how much the US Government paid Nickelodeon to do this?"
It is good for our kids to want to get involved, but when they are being fed this bullshit that we are "living large" because we have a "democracy" I find that kind of reminiscent of brain washing. It is feeding and brain washing our kids to believe we live in this utopian society. Now don't get me wrong, there are countries up shit's creek without a paddle, far worse than we are. But -COME ON-!!
Why isn't Nickelodeon singing about important things like the Peak Oil Crisis or maybe how we need to pull out of Iraq -now-, rather than how we can live large and be comfortable because our "rights" could never be taken way. You are in charge because you vote.
All I have to say to that is....LIES!
Here is my video response I posted on youtube. Perhaps you all would like to join in with my little challenge.
And remember kids, it's in our Constitution that, it is not only our right, but our responsibility as American citizens, to question an invasive governmental action which clearly undermines our Constitutional rights. Perhaps a song about this would be better?
Well this song came on talking about how we have real democracy in the USA.
Please tell me you are at least slightly disturbed.
After watching that, all I could think is, "I wonder how much the US Government paid Nickelodeon to do this?"
It is good for our kids to want to get involved, but when they are being fed this bullshit that we are "living large" because we have a "democracy" I find that kind of reminiscent of brain washing. It is feeding and brain washing our kids to believe we live in this utopian society. Now don't get me wrong, there are countries up shit's creek without a paddle, far worse than we are. But -COME ON-!!
Why isn't Nickelodeon singing about important things like the Peak Oil Crisis or maybe how we need to pull out of Iraq -now-, rather than how we can live large and be comfortable because our "rights" could never be taken way. You are in charge because you vote.
All I have to say to that is....LIES!
Here is my video response I posted on youtube. Perhaps you all would like to join in with my little challenge.
And remember kids, it's in our Constitution that, it is not only our right, but our responsibility as American citizens, to question an invasive governmental action which clearly undermines our Constitutional rights. Perhaps a song about this would be better?
Iraq withdraw timetable set
American troops could only be in Iraq so long as the Iraq government was allowing them, otherwise the US would be considered (more so) an occupying force, legally, by the UN. Initially when Iraq stated that they no longer wanted the US there it was rejected by the United States. Then, quietly, Bush rescinded.
Unpublished by much of the mainstream media I finally found a lone article on this written by the NY times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html
Bush, in a Shift, Accepts Concept of Iraq Timeline
Ashley Gilbertson for The New York Times
Well... Not the way that I expected us to withdraw, but happy news none the less.
Unpublished by much of the mainstream media I finally found a lone article on this written by the NY times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html
Bush, in a Shift, Accepts Concept of Iraq Timeline
Ashley Gilbertson for The New York Times
Soldiers from the 25th Infantry Division patrolled the town of Nasr Wa Salam, between Baghdad and Falluja, on Friday.
Article Tools Sponsored By
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: July 19, 2008
HOUSTON — President Bush agreed to “a general time horizon” for withdrawing American troops in Iraq, the White House announced Friday, in a concession that reflected both progress in stabilizing Iraq and the depth of political opposition to an open-ended military presence in Iraq and at home.
Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.
The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence.
The White House offered no specifics about how far off any “time horizon” would be, with officials saying details remained to be negotiated. Any dates cited in an agreement would be cast as goals for handing responsibility to Iraqis, and not specifically for reducing American troops, said a White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe.
But the White House statement said that the two leaders “agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.”
The announcement could alter the American political debate over the war in Iraq and how best to end it now that even Mr. Bush is willing to speak of an end to the American presence. It came on the eve of a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, who has vowed to pursue a strict phased timetable for withdrawing most combat troops from Iraq over 16 months beginning next year. He has cited Iraq’s eagerness for a timetable as support for his strategy.
A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Bill Burton, called the announcement “a step in the right direction,” but derided what he called the vagueness of the White House commitment. Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, praised the agreement as evidence that Mr. Bush’s strategy of sending additional forces last year had worked and he sought to use it as a cudgel against Mr. Obama.
“An artificial timetable based on political expediency would have led to disaster and could still turn success into defeat,” Mr. McCain said.
Mr. Bush and his aides, traveling in Tucson and Houston to attend Republican fund-raisers, insisted again that the administration was not accepting any timetable for withdrawing American forces, which now total roughly 140,000. But the administration has faced increasing resistance from a newly confident Iraq, where some officials have said publicly that Iraq can take charge of much of its security by 2009, and be able to operate without American help by 2012.
Under pressure from political parties wanting a diminishing American role, Mr. Maliki began demanding something in the agreement that would make it clear that American troops were on the way out. Iraq’s statement on Friday, reflecting those internal sensitivities, referred more specifically than the American version to “a time frame for the complete transfer of the security responsibilities to the hands of the Iraqi security as preface to decrease the number of the American forces and withdraw them later from Iraq.”
In Baghdad, a member of Mr. Maliki’s Dawa Party, Ali al-Adeeb, said the withdrawal of American and other foreign forces was fundamental to an accord. “The Iraqi government considers the determination of a specific date for the withdrawal of foreign forces an important issue to deal with,” he said. “I don’t know what the American side thinks, but we consider it the core of the subject.”
Mr. Adeeb suggested that a final agreement was not imminent, but White House aides said they were confident one would be reached by the end of the month. “We’re converging on an agreement,” an administration official said, noting that negotiators continued to hammer out provisions involving security matters. Those include command of military operations, legal immunities for civilian contractors and the authority to detain prisoners.
On the prospect of dates for American withdrawals, Mr. Johndroe, the White House spokesman, said that the agreement would not prescribe American troop levels over time, but rather reflect a transition to Iraqi command. “The agreement will look at goal dates for transition of responsibilities and missions,” Mr. Johndroe said in an e-mail message. “The focus is on the Iraqi assumption of missions, not on what troop levels will be.”
The agreement that American and Iraqi negotiators are now completing is more modest than the long-term strategic pact that Mr. Bush and Mr. Maliki pledged last November to negotiate to replace the United Nations mandate at the end of this year.
The administration dropped a promise in that initial agreement to provide long-term security for Iraq, something that would require a treaty and Congressional approval. It has also backed off other demands for sweeping powers to continue military operations there indefinitely.
The negotiations have been bogged down by issues involving the laws governing American troops, diplomats and civilian contractors, as well as details like customs duties and drivers’ licenses for American soldiers.
Administration officials now say that they are negotiating an agreement that would establish the legal authority for American commanders to conduct combat operations, control airspace and detain Iraqi prisoners, while deferring the more complicated details of a “status of forces agreement” to the next administration. The United States has such agreements that govern its military presence in Germany, South Korea and some other nations. Some Bush administration officials had envisioned concluding a similar accord with Iraq before Mr. Bush left office.
Friday’s statements noted the gradual handover of security to Iraqi forces, now complete in 10 of Iraq’s 18 provinces, though not in the most volatile ones, where American and Iraqi troops continue to wage war with insurgents. The statements suggested that the final agreement could link the complete transition of control in the remaining provinces to the withdrawal of American forces — a timetable, though, without specific dates.
The statements also referred to the withdrawal this month of the last of five additional combat brigades that Mr. Bush ordered to Iraq last year. The American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, is now reviewing the possibility of withdrawing more beginning in September.
On Wednesday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, said that he hoped that more brigades could come out; some administration and military officials have previously indicated that as many as 3 of the remaining 15 brigades could begin to withdraw by next year.
In Congress, even a more modest agreement with the Iraqis over the American military presence still faces opposition.
Representative Bill Delahunt, a Democrat from Massachusetts who has held hearings on the legality of the agreement the administration is seeking, said that “a timetable with specific dates is critical,” calling the White House’s time horizon “very vague and nebulous.”
He welcomed the pending agreement as “far less grandiose than what was initially articulated,” but said he remained concerned about the legal authority allowing American military operations in Iraq once the United Nations mandate expired on Dec. 31 of this year.
Well... Not the way that I expected us to withdraw, but happy news none the less.
They're our brothers, they're our sisters, we support the war resisters.
During Vietnam 50,000 US draft dodgers and deserters fled to Canada, making it the largest upwards immigration of the US since the Revolutionary war. During the war Canada had one of the most open immigration policies in the world. Showing up with a job offer in Canada would grant a landed immigrant status on the spot. In addition people could also apply for immigrant status after arriving. In 1969, Pierre Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, instructed immigration authorities were not to discriminate against applicants who may not have fulfilled their military obligations in other countries, allowing both US war resisters and Czechoslovakian deserters to find refuge.
Over time the job market tightened and immigration is much more restricted. Immigrants need to apply and wait outside of Canada, encumbering those running from military service.
Refugee status, the other alternative, is unlikely to be granted to US residents because Canada considers it a democracy and closest ally. That said, war objectors who come to Canada will automatically receive protection, and will be allowed to stay until the claim is heard (months to years).
Canada was crucial in the effort to resist the war during Vietnam, and has never sent back a war resister until now. This case changes that.
The lawsuit filed calls into question the legality of the war, the crimes committed by the administration in charge, and the lies that lead the US into war.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080714.wwardeserter0714/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080714.wwardeserter0714&67
Over time the job market tightened and immigration is much more restricted. Immigrants need to apply and wait outside of Canada, encumbering those running from military service.
Refugee status, the other alternative, is unlikely to be granted to US residents because Canada considers it a democracy and closest ally. That said, war objectors who come to Canada will automatically receive protection, and will be allowed to stay until the claim is heard (months to years).
Canada was crucial in the effort to resist the war during Vietnam, and has never sent back a war resister until now. This case changes that.
The lawsuit filed calls into question the legality of the war, the crimes committed by the administration in charge, and the lies that lead the US into war.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080714.wwardeserter0714/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080714.wwardeserter0714&67
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Why McCain Won't Know How to Win Wars
Yesterday, in Albuquerque, NM, McCain addressed a large crowd claiming that "I know how to win wars"[1].
Now, let's just take a step back and dissect this comment a bit. How can an individual actually know, without a doubt how to "win wars". We don't even need to delve into the number of operators that managed to make the first Gulf War or the Kosovo War successes to see the hubris in such a statement. The idea that wars themselves are so homogeneous that a single strategy can even be applied in all cases is laughable at best. History tells us differently, as not even the strategy used to fight the first Gulf War was sufficient to succeed in the second. Additionally, this comment really smells of Eau d'War-mongering. It brings up recollections of George W. Bush's Feb. 8 2004 proclamation:
Iraq, also, is quite an urbanized and westernized society. It has a considerable amount in common with Europe and the USA in regards to population distribution and developed infrastructure. Iraq is a country consisting of numerous compact cities, with population concentrated in cities and along roadways[3]. In Iraq, we were fighting to maintain control of the cities and the roadways. It was constantly a weighing of which places to focus the greatest number of troops in, and where to take new troops from. One of the reasons for the surge appearing to work is that, with more soldiers on the ground and more money we were able to secure more roadways and cities for the majority of Iraqis to safely run their daily lives. When fighting breaks out in Basra, the forces on the ground can know about it through electronic communications, and can reach it, typically, by driving there.
In Afghanistan, these population and development models are completely turned upside-down. There are two "big cities" in Afghanistan, and then huge swaths of land with medium-density population[4]. A majority of the Afghan population don't live lives that revolve around urban areas and urban economies. This is especially true in the north of the country, where there are a considerable amount of smaller cities and towns surrounded by large, distributed settlements of Afghans. The "secure the roads and cities" approach is not going to work here. It is less likely that forces will be able to be moved across the country freely as they are in Iraq. Any forces we deploy for the purpose of securing an area will likely have to remain long after major fighting is complete, and spend considerable time combing the countryside. Considerable other forces will need to be deployed to secure other large sections of the country. To achieve the same sort of "security" that we get in Iraq, we'll likely need to deploy many more forces per-capita in Afghanistan than we did in Iraq.
But the more chilling conclusion that I read into McCain's speech is the same I've got from Bush's "War President" policy. Both have taken the attitude that winning constitutes "killing all the Bad Guys". This oversimplification seriously undermines what we (and the UN) have really set out to accomplish with these war missions. In addition, it reinforces the approach that we'll win the war by fighting, and solely by fighting. True, if we can get enough soldiers on the ground and enough money and arms into the country we can probably militarily defeat just about any enemy. But the social and economic costs of this approach are so high that we rarely exercise it in practice, we just can't afford to do it. The concept missed by McCain, Bush, and other Surge-Mongers is that you need an exit plan and you really need a reconstruction plan. There needs to be much less talk about how we'll "defeat our enemies" and "hunt down bin Ladin", and more planning for what a rebuilt Afghanistan looks like, and how it fits into the world in general. One of the reasons that Afghanistan has not really progressed is that the population there hasn't been provided with very many new opportunities, aside from expanded personal liberties. The Afghan people need a new deal in social and economic revolution, not in military occupation. Winning the gun-battles is a meager portion of the work that needs to be done to fix this country.
Unfortunately, while McCain continues to argue that a draw-down of combat troops is a "losing strategy", he doesn't provide many answers to how combat troops serve a "winning strategy". He is much more focused on killing off al-Quaeda networks and Taliban insurgents, while being coldly silent on a solution for the non-military part of the war. This is the same policy blunder that evolved into the Iraqi civil war that has lasted for 5 years now. What McCain neglects to tell the people is that Obama solely advocates a withdrawl of "combat troops" and "combat operations", while leaving an international presence for policing and rebuilding (non-combat) purposes. This would still involve soldiers who still can fight insurgency when necessary, but also reallocates many combat soldiers to Afghanistan while replacing them with many more aid and engineering workers in Iraq, to rebuild the country. You can read this now, it is on his website. A visit to McCain's website focuses on our goal being primarily militaristic, and discusses nothing about allocation of our forces for rebuilding purposes. In fact, McCain even goes on to say that one of our key mission objectives is "to secure our interests there." Sadly, it doesn't appear that McCain or the Republican Party at large has learned much about what went wrong in Iraq, and they promote a stillborn plan for the war in Afghanistan.
The problem is that Bush and McCain don't see a war that has gone on much longer than proposed and at a much greater cost of money and life than was planned upon as being a failure. To both of them, as long as we're still there fighting, "it hasn't been lost yet". Unfortunately, for them, a success is defined by a successful execution of a plan. Since 2005, we've only had two potential outcomes to the war in Iraq:
The simplifications and generalizations made by McCain on this matter are dis-informative, at best, and harmful, at worst. Either one of these candidates will inherit a war, it is how they plan to close it that is of utmost importance.
Now, let's just take a step back and dissect this comment a bit. How can an individual actually know, without a doubt how to "win wars". We don't even need to delve into the number of operators that managed to make the first Gulf War or the Kosovo War successes to see the hubris in such a statement. The idea that wars themselves are so homogeneous that a single strategy can even be applied in all cases is laughable at best. History tells us differently, as not even the strategy used to fight the first Gulf War was sufficient to succeed in the second. Additionally, this comment really smells of Eau d'War-mongering. It brings up recollections of George W. Bush's Feb. 8 2004 proclamation:
I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.[2]So, following the stump speech by McCain even further, he reveals that the strategy for winning in Afghanistan is the strategy we just used in Iraq. He is making the failed assumption that Bush made when leading us into Iraq: that these two wars are relatively homogeneous. Additionally, all credit does not deserve to go squarely to "The Surge". Rather, the Iraqis themselves deserve quite a bit of credit for making this happen. Faced with the prospect of a tri-sected Iraqi nation, they did eventually come together and work internally to end much of the sectarian infighting that exploded following the toppling of the Baath regime. Make no mistake about it: Iraq was in a state of civil war, with all three major groups warring over who gets what, leadership of each group saw that it was in their interests to cooperate against sectarian fringe militias for the common good.
Iraq, also, is quite an urbanized and westernized society. It has a considerable amount in common with Europe and the USA in regards to population distribution and developed infrastructure. Iraq is a country consisting of numerous compact cities, with population concentrated in cities and along roadways[3]. In Iraq, we were fighting to maintain control of the cities and the roadways. It was constantly a weighing of which places to focus the greatest number of troops in, and where to take new troops from. One of the reasons for the surge appearing to work is that, with more soldiers on the ground and more money we were able to secure more roadways and cities for the majority of Iraqis to safely run their daily lives. When fighting breaks out in Basra, the forces on the ground can know about it through electronic communications, and can reach it, typically, by driving there.
In Afghanistan, these population and development models are completely turned upside-down. There are two "big cities" in Afghanistan, and then huge swaths of land with medium-density population[4]. A majority of the Afghan population don't live lives that revolve around urban areas and urban economies. This is especially true in the north of the country, where there are a considerable amount of smaller cities and towns surrounded by large, distributed settlements of Afghans. The "secure the roads and cities" approach is not going to work here. It is less likely that forces will be able to be moved across the country freely as they are in Iraq. Any forces we deploy for the purpose of securing an area will likely have to remain long after major fighting is complete, and spend considerable time combing the countryside. Considerable other forces will need to be deployed to secure other large sections of the country. To achieve the same sort of "security" that we get in Iraq, we'll likely need to deploy many more forces per-capita in Afghanistan than we did in Iraq.
But the more chilling conclusion that I read into McCain's speech is the same I've got from Bush's "War President" policy. Both have taken the attitude that winning constitutes "killing all the Bad Guys". This oversimplification seriously undermines what we (and the UN) have really set out to accomplish with these war missions. In addition, it reinforces the approach that we'll win the war by fighting, and solely by fighting. True, if we can get enough soldiers on the ground and enough money and arms into the country we can probably militarily defeat just about any enemy. But the social and economic costs of this approach are so high that we rarely exercise it in practice, we just can't afford to do it. The concept missed by McCain, Bush, and other Surge-Mongers is that you need an exit plan and you really need a reconstruction plan. There needs to be much less talk about how we'll "defeat our enemies" and "hunt down bin Ladin", and more planning for what a rebuilt Afghanistan looks like, and how it fits into the world in general. One of the reasons that Afghanistan has not really progressed is that the population there hasn't been provided with very many new opportunities, aside from expanded personal liberties. The Afghan people need a new deal in social and economic revolution, not in military occupation. Winning the gun-battles is a meager portion of the work that needs to be done to fix this country.
Unfortunately, while McCain continues to argue that a draw-down of combat troops is a "losing strategy", he doesn't provide many answers to how combat troops serve a "winning strategy". He is much more focused on killing off al-Quaeda networks and Taliban insurgents, while being coldly silent on a solution for the non-military part of the war. This is the same policy blunder that evolved into the Iraqi civil war that has lasted for 5 years now. What McCain neglects to tell the people is that Obama solely advocates a withdrawl of "combat troops" and "combat operations", while leaving an international presence for policing and rebuilding (non-combat) purposes. This would still involve soldiers who still can fight insurgency when necessary, but also reallocates many combat soldiers to Afghanistan while replacing them with many more aid and engineering workers in Iraq, to rebuild the country. You can read this now, it is on his website. A visit to McCain's website focuses on our goal being primarily militaristic, and discusses nothing about allocation of our forces for rebuilding purposes. In fact, McCain even goes on to say that one of our key mission objectives is "to secure our interests there." Sadly, it doesn't appear that McCain or the Republican Party at large has learned much about what went wrong in Iraq, and they promote a stillborn plan for the war in Afghanistan.
The problem is that Bush and McCain don't see a war that has gone on much longer than proposed and at a much greater cost of money and life than was planned upon as being a failure. To both of them, as long as we're still there fighting, "it hasn't been lost yet". Unfortunately, for them, a success is defined by a successful execution of a plan. Since 2005, we've only had two potential outcomes to the war in Iraq:
- Fail, but remain to clean up our mess
- Fail, then leave it for the Iraqis to clean up
The simplifications and generalizations made by McCain on this matter are dis-informative, at best, and harmful, at worst. Either one of these candidates will inherit a war, it is how they plan to close it that is of utmost importance.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Who DOES Support the Occupation of Iraq?
-60% of Americans want to withdraw troops from Iraq
-70% of the Iraqi people oppose the occupation
-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has demanded the United States offer a time line for withdrawal
Yes, that's right. Even the puppet government is opposed to the occupation.
-70% of the Iraqi people oppose the occupation
-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has demanded the United States offer a time line for withdrawal
Yes, that's right. Even the puppet government is opposed to the occupation.
Headlines for July.14.08
* Kucinich introduced the impeachment bill as one article on Thursday. Pelosi suggested that the House Judiciary Committee may hold some hearings on the resolution, more then they have done before.
* The Red Cross stated that the conditions at Gitmo are in fact torture.
This is important because the Red cross is the international standard for prison conditions - they inspect all of the international prisons and their judgment on what is and is not acceptable is the international baseline. If they say that we are torturing, it doesn't matter what screwed up logic that we make here at home, in the eyes of the world what we are doing is a War Crime, and it brings the possibility of charges and a tribunal.
* Karl Rove continues to ignore a subpoena from the Congress citing executive privileges. This was already turned down once during the Nixon Administration. - Executive power does not trump the Congress' role of oversight. Because the courts are packed with loyal appointees the only road for redress in this matter - the courts - are effectively blocked.
* Iran tested missiles. The United States wants to build a radar base in Prague as part of U.S. missile defense system in eastern Europe. If The Czech Republic allows this then Russia has threatened force.
* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stocks have continued to slump, which is feeding speculation that the government will bail them out.
* Homeland security looking at a new measure for security: requiring everyone on planes to wear bracelets that will effectively taser you if activated.
* The Green Party convention was in Illinois.
* The Ron Paul Revolution march was this weekend in DC.
* Anti-gay Alabama Republican Attorney General was caught in bed by his wife with another man.
* The Red Cross stated that the conditions at Gitmo are in fact torture.
This is important because the Red cross is the international standard for prison conditions - they inspect all of the international prisons and their judgment on what is and is not acceptable is the international baseline. If they say that we are torturing, it doesn't matter what screwed up logic that we make here at home, in the eyes of the world what we are doing is a War Crime, and it brings the possibility of charges and a tribunal.
* Karl Rove continues to ignore a subpoena from the Congress citing executive privileges. This was already turned down once during the Nixon Administration. - Executive power does not trump the Congress' role of oversight. Because the courts are packed with loyal appointees the only road for redress in this matter - the courts - are effectively blocked.
* Iran tested missiles. The United States wants to build a radar base in Prague as part of U.S. missile defense system in eastern Europe. If The Czech Republic allows this then Russia has threatened force.
* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stocks have continued to slump, which is feeding speculation that the government will bail them out.
* Homeland security looking at a new measure for security: requiring everyone on planes to wear bracelets that will effectively taser you if activated.
* The Green Party convention was in Illinois.
* The Ron Paul Revolution march was this weekend in DC.
* Anti-gay Alabama Republican Attorney General was caught in bed by his wife with another man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)