So Much News, So little Time.
Iraq Prime Minister Agrees that Blackwater should be banned and suspects in Saturday's shootout should be tried in Iraqi Courts.
There was a meeting in Iraq to eveluate the Interior Ministry's decision to ban Blackwater and everyone aggreed they were right, except the US I'm sure. There are 48,000 private contractors in Iraq, about 1,000 from Blackwater. Iraq is declaring independence from the US and starting to govern itself. Good for them.
The Puppet [government in Iraq] talks back
The Jim Webb Amendment to Protect the Troops gets filibustered by the Republicans.
The Troops in Iraq are under stress 24 hours, 7 days per week. Even when they are sleeping, they are worrying about rocket attacks. This kind of stress is terrible for the health of our soldiers. Currently they spend an average of 12 months at home for every 15 months in Iraq, that's the average some are coming home for only 6 months. This amendment said that US military personnel should spend at least as much time at home recovering as they do in Iraq. it even allowed the president to bend the rules if he makes a valid case to congress (you know the branch that declares war) if the troops are needed. British troops spend 6 months at war and a year at home. This is a bare minimum step to protect the health of our military troops and make sure that that they can reintegrate themselves into society.
The bill got 56 votes and the republicans filibustered it.
What a bunch of heartless lemmings. The Republicans are a disgrace, why are they protecting Bush and this failed policy. This is completely offensive to me. There were 3 republican co-sponsors, and still the rest of the senate gave the troops a big "fuck you" by ignoring the consequences of these extended deployments. Their hegemonic ideology is not sustainable, and they are ignoring the human concequences, just so they can play they international empire war games. None of it is making us safer, and it is abusive to our troops.
Detainees in the "War on Terror" can be detained indefinitely, without charge.
They have no rights to know why they are being held, nor challenge the charges against them in court. They can just sit in jail until they die, without ever knowing what they did. There are a lot of innocent people in these prisons, being tortured, and they have no chance at all to prove their innocence. If we tolerate this position we may as well just give up on America. The rule of law is just a bunch of bullshit if the president can throw somebody in jail unilaterally without ever charging them with a crime, let them be interrogated, and die there. Innocent until proven guilty my ass. What's to stop them from throwing anybody they choose in jail, how about a guy trying to form an Oil Workers Union in Iraq, or anybody the US disagrees with. This is an atrocity. Americans have learned nothing from history.
56 senators voted to reinstate Habeas Corpus, the others, all republicans, are traitors, what else can I call them.
This inalienable right is known as, the Writ of Habeas Corpus, if you are thrown in jail you have a right to know why, and see the evidence. This prevents the king from locking up anyone he doesn't like, for no reason, besides the fact that he doesn't like them. This protection has been the bedrock of modern law since the Magna Carta in 1215!!!! But I guess nothing in history has been as bad as 9/11, and now we need a strong man to take away our rights for our own protection. It's for our own good. What the hell is wrong with this country, why are we following an authoritarian off a cliff?
So Much for the Middle East Peace Process
Condi Rice shows up to hold a peace summit in Israel. And hours before her arrival Israel declares the Gaza Strip an "Enemy Entity" and says it's going to cut off utilities to the occupied territory. Rice didn't make a single comment about. And she's not sure if countries like Egypt will be coming to her summit. That's right folks, one Safer world coming right up.
The best thing you can do, if all of this stuff makes you angry, is call your representatives and tell them that you will not vote for them if they don't do something about it, their job is to protect the constitution. I don't want to make everyone upset and leave you no options about how to fix it. Congress people get scared when constituents call them, it's more effective than voting. go to congress.org to find your reps, or there are links in my sidebar to the right.
This stuff is out of control. We are giving up everything that makes America great.
Dcoffee's Journal
My Podcast Link
09/20/2007 09:39 #41211
Blackwater, the Senate, and IsraelCategory: political
09/18/2007 00:34 #41170
Iraq Unraveling,Category: political
Crucial news stories are trickling out from Iraq. You may have missed these, because it's buried under the mass of a new OJ trial of some sort. Here is some of the real news.
Bush's new Iraq Ally gets killed.
When George bush went to Iraq two weeks ago. He went to Anbar Provence, which is so safe even the president can go there. That's the message anyway, Success in Anbar. And who do we have to thank? The troop surge of course, and a man named Sheikh Abu Risha who brought the warring factions together to fight Al Qaeda. Bush is seen shaking Abu Risha's hand in the above picture. Now the people in Anbar can go about being a stable democracy, and "an ally on the war on terror" as bush says.
Abu Risha shook Bush's hand, and a week later was killed... by Al Qaeda of course, just hours before Bush gave a speech on the wonderful things happening in Iraq. Tragic end to a wonderful man? Not quite. One journalist took his Camera to Anbar for the BBC and chronicled the progress and the uneasiness there. They found Abu Risha, the man of mystery, and got an interview out of him, one of the things he said was "I have worked with All of the Iraqi Tribes and they are All under my leadership." a blanket statement that makes the bullshit alarms go off in my head. All of the tribes? really? They are "All" under your leadership. Well how come nobody ever heard of you before now, he was nicknamed the "ghost of Anbar" by the Iraqis, because nobody had heard his name until recently, and few have met him. But he showed up just in time for Bush to stage a photo op, and try to sell the Iraq Policy again. And Abu Risha was killed in true mob fashion, he got greedy, he conned the Americans into giving him some money, then he fled to jordan, but he did not escape the Iraqi mob, who sent a message to other con men who go meddling in their business and taking money for themselves.
Video, from Iraq
Part one
Part 2
In Depth Analysis, from Greg Palast
Abu Risha's obituary from the BBC
The other Big story "Will Iraq Kick Out Blackwater?"
If you've never heard of "Blackwater" you might be interested to know that the US military isn't the only American force fighting in Iraq, Blackwater is a private contractor, hired guns, mercenaries if you will. They do things like protect State Department officials when they travel about the country. They're heavily armed and get paid about 50 times more then the US military personnel (not 50% more, military pay x50). Anyway they've got at least 1,000 soldiers, er, people fighting in Iraq. And they're in a sort of legal limbo, unaccountable to the American Government, our military courts, or any other.
In a recent twist of events, Blackwater contractors were involved in a firefight on Sunday, which left a number of Iraqis dead or injured. The event was offensive enough that the Iraqi Interior Ministry has suspended Blackwater's license to operate in the country. They declared that all Blackwater personnel must leave the country, except those being questioned in the shooting, they will be tried in Iraqi courts. I didn't know Iraq had functioning courts. But anyway, that was the story, until the state department called Iraq's Prime Minister Alawi to demand a stop to this legal nonsense. Well actually Condi Rice called Alawi and said the the US was already investigating this matter, no need to worry, don't get too hasty. Alawi and his cabinet are going to have a meeting about it tomorrow. I'm very curious what will come out of it.
Kicking contractors out of Iraq... depending on how this plays out it could be a watershed moment. There are thousands of contractors operating in Iraq, a shadow military of some sort. There are 48,000 Military contractors in Iraq (corrected). What if they started kicking them out, establishing their own sovereignty, and thereby reducing the troop level without Bush's consent by reducing the number of contractors aiding the troops. What happens then? I'm rooting for the Iraqis on this one.
News accounts of the Blackwater Story:
More About Blackwater
P.S.
Alan Greenspan says oil was the purpose of Iraq War. So if you don't believe me, believe him. He's a republican stalwart who was there from the beginning. It's kind of like John McCain of Paul Wolfowitz confessing about the Iraq War. Greenspan briefed Bush on the idea as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Bush's new Iraq Ally gets killed.
When George bush went to Iraq two weeks ago. He went to Anbar Provence, which is so safe even the president can go there. That's the message anyway, Success in Anbar. And who do we have to thank? The troop surge of course, and a man named Sheikh Abu Risha who brought the warring factions together to fight Al Qaeda. Bush is seen shaking Abu Risha's hand in the above picture. Now the people in Anbar can go about being a stable democracy, and "an ally on the war on terror" as bush says.
Abu Risha shook Bush's hand, and a week later was killed... by Al Qaeda of course, just hours before Bush gave a speech on the wonderful things happening in Iraq. Tragic end to a wonderful man? Not quite. One journalist took his Camera to Anbar for the BBC and chronicled the progress and the uneasiness there. They found Abu Risha, the man of mystery, and got an interview out of him, one of the things he said was "I have worked with All of the Iraqi Tribes and they are All under my leadership." a blanket statement that makes the bullshit alarms go off in my head. All of the tribes? really? They are "All" under your leadership. Well how come nobody ever heard of you before now, he was nicknamed the "ghost of Anbar" by the Iraqis, because nobody had heard his name until recently, and few have met him. But he showed up just in time for Bush to stage a photo op, and try to sell the Iraq Policy again. And Abu Risha was killed in true mob fashion, he got greedy, he conned the Americans into giving him some money, then he fled to jordan, but he did not escape the Iraqi mob, who sent a message to other con men who go meddling in their business and taking money for themselves.
Video, from Iraq
Part one
Part 2
In Depth Analysis, from Greg Palast
Abu Risha's obituary from the BBC
The other Big story "Will Iraq Kick Out Blackwater?"
If you've never heard of "Blackwater" you might be interested to know that the US military isn't the only American force fighting in Iraq, Blackwater is a private contractor, hired guns, mercenaries if you will. They do things like protect State Department officials when they travel about the country. They're heavily armed and get paid about 50 times more then the US military personnel (not 50% more, military pay x50). Anyway they've got at least 1,000 soldiers, er, people fighting in Iraq. And they're in a sort of legal limbo, unaccountable to the American Government, our military courts, or any other.
In a recent twist of events, Blackwater contractors were involved in a firefight on Sunday, which left a number of Iraqis dead or injured. The event was offensive enough that the Iraqi Interior Ministry has suspended Blackwater's license to operate in the country. They declared that all Blackwater personnel must leave the country, except those being questioned in the shooting, they will be tried in Iraqi courts. I didn't know Iraq had functioning courts. But anyway, that was the story, until the state department called Iraq's Prime Minister Alawi to demand a stop to this legal nonsense. Well actually Condi Rice called Alawi and said the the US was already investigating this matter, no need to worry, don't get too hasty. Alawi and his cabinet are going to have a meeting about it tomorrow. I'm very curious what will come out of it.
Kicking contractors out of Iraq... depending on how this plays out it could be a watershed moment. There are thousands of contractors operating in Iraq, a shadow military of some sort. There are 48,000 Military contractors in Iraq (corrected). What if they started kicking them out, establishing their own sovereignty, and thereby reducing the troop level without Bush's consent by reducing the number of contractors aiding the troops. What happens then? I'm rooting for the Iraqis on this one.
News accounts of the Blackwater Story:
More About Blackwater
P.S.
Alan Greenspan says oil was the purpose of Iraq War. So if you don't believe me, believe him. He's a republican stalwart who was there from the beginning. It's kind of like John McCain of Paul Wolfowitz confessing about the Iraq War. Greenspan briefed Bush on the idea as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
dcoffee - 09/18/07 16:09
I guess Greenspan should take that as a compliment :-) I was just trying to think of a recognizable figure that was a full-blown republican.
I was curious about your opinion on my last entry, where I said the Iraq War is not making us safer. That's a pretty bold assertion. I just wonder if you agree. Anyone who is against the idea of bringing our troops home from Iraq ASAP would probably take issue with that. thoughts?
I guess Greenspan should take that as a compliment :-) I was just trying to think of a recognizable figure that was a full-blown republican.
I was curious about your opinion on my last entry, where I said the Iraq War is not making us safer. That's a pretty bold assertion. I just wonder if you agree. Anyone who is against the idea of bringing our troops home from Iraq ASAP would probably take issue with that. thoughts?
jason - 09/18/07 14:07
Whatever you may think about Greenspan, he's no Wolfowitz, by any metric I can imagine.
Whatever you may think about Greenspan, he's no Wolfowitz, by any metric I can imagine.
james - 09/18/07 10:04
Greenspan also said that Iraq was after the Strait of Hormaz: On the border of UAE and Iran and a major oil production and shipping area.
Of course, Iraq does not have a border on that side of the Persian Gulf... nor does it have a Navy. Oh, and Saudi Arabia and Iran stand in their way... WTF?
Greenspan also said that Iraq was after the Strait of Hormaz: On the border of UAE and Iran and a major oil production and shipping area.
Of course, Iraq does not have a border on that side of the Persian Gulf... nor does it have a Navy. Oh, and Saudi Arabia and Iran stand in their way... WTF?
09/13/2007 00:40 #41072
The General, War for No Good ReasonCategory: politics
General Petraeus testified to the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday and today. The general was asked an interesting question by Republican senator John Warner, But his answer was the real eye opener.
Senator Warner: Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you have laid before the congress here, this strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?
General Petraeus: Sir, I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.
Warner: Does that make America safer?
General Petraeus: Sir I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind what I have focused on and what I have been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the multinational force Iraq.
Is the Iraq War making us safer? The General couldn't say No, that would be a political disaster. But Patreus is also a bit to honest to say yes.
He can't say "Yes we should put all our available troops in Iraq because this is the war to save America."
The battle to protect innocent American life from extremists cannot be won by brute force. And it certainly can't be won by exhausting our military in Iraq. The general may be able to stabilize Iraq, over 10 years or so, but in the meantime, the danger to America is Growing.
This stupid war is being waged for Bush and Bush alone. Not America. Impeach that son of a bitch and bring some sanity to our foreign policy. We started a damn Arms Race, and now Russia has the "father of all bombs" and the world has its finger on the trigger. The war in Iraq is just a Jihaddist recruiting, training ground, and fundraising tool for extremists. Osama and Al Qaeda want us to stay in Iraq, because every dead civilian proves that they are right and America is wrong.
We will stop terrorist plots through good old fashioned law enforcement. Terrorism is a crime, not a country that we can invade. Law enforcement depends on international cooperation and intelligence sharing. To bad we currently have no friends, no trust, and thanks to Bush, no International Criminal Court.
Read "Why Terrorists Aren't Soldiers"
I don't know what the purpose of this war is, only Bush and his wealthy authoritarian friends in the Oil and Weapons industries know the real reason for this war. But it has not, and will not make America Safer.
When the founding fathers put impeachment into the constitution, they were thinking of George W Bush. A power hungry authoritarian who is willing to deceive the nation in order to take more power and money for himself. He has destroyed the fragile framework of Democracy by claiming executive superiority, and unilaterally granting power to himself. The big problem is that if he is allowed to get away with it, without consequences, what's to stop the next president, and every president after that. Bush thinks he can ignore the Congress and the Courts, disregard subpoenas, prevent whitehouse officials from testifying or swearing an oath, and violate any law painstakingly passed through congress.
If I learned one thing in my US history class, it's that the US is a great country, because we have checks and balances, three branches of government. Remember that? That's pretty fucking important. And if one arrogant president can start a war, trample the other two branches of government, and have no consequences... You had better be fucking worried. Call your congresspeople and demand impeachment, that's the power that you still have.
That's a great question, has this War, and this President, made America safer?
Keep your bullshit detectors on tomorrow.
Bush will address the nation and say say "Look I'm cutting troops, what more do you want from me?" and the papers will say, "Bush cutting troops, democrats still unhappy". "Bush to support troop pullback, Democrats want more out sooner" look for more headlines like that and remember it's another lie.
some 30,000 troops will leave Iraq by March. And it's all Bush's wonderful idea, how merciful. Yea, what choice does he have? to keep them there longer he would be violating their contracts by extending their tours. those 30,000 troops were just added in January for the "surge" he got the maximum time out of them, now he will go through normal troop rotations. All while claiming He has decided to find middle ground and compromise with those pesky America hating Democrats by withdrawing some troops.
A year and a half is not a "surge" it's an escalation. And withdrawing troops in March, is another way of Bush squeezing every bit of energy out of them without causing a revolt.
metalpeter - 09/13/07 19:38
I'm not going to put all the blame on Bush I got back to Clinton and Bush before him and maybe even "Ronie Ray Gun". The US has had a bad forgien policy for a long time. We like to go get into wars and conflicts and sometimes with out really thinking. I think if Powell was President (not saying if he ran he would have won at the hight of his fame) we would be much better off. Powell was a military man and worked up the ranks he knows about the horrors of war and wouldn't just go in for no reason. But see none of these guys have been military men so they don't really get wars and ocupations and all that stuff. Yes different guys would have different views but at least when they send troops places they understand what is going on and will only send them for good reason.
I wonder if Bush is evil enough to let another Attack happen before elections start and then try to enact war powers and suspend elections. I know it sounds crazy and with Iraq being a horrid mess it wouldn't work. But what if Iran attacked us then it might. I'm not saying it would happen but I'm sure Bush has at least thought about it.
I'm not going to put all the blame on Bush I got back to Clinton and Bush before him and maybe even "Ronie Ray Gun". The US has had a bad forgien policy for a long time. We like to go get into wars and conflicts and sometimes with out really thinking. I think if Powell was President (not saying if he ran he would have won at the hight of his fame) we would be much better off. Powell was a military man and worked up the ranks he knows about the horrors of war and wouldn't just go in for no reason. But see none of these guys have been military men so they don't really get wars and ocupations and all that stuff. Yes different guys would have different views but at least when they send troops places they understand what is going on and will only send them for good reason.
I wonder if Bush is evil enough to let another Attack happen before elections start and then try to enact war powers and suspend elections. I know it sounds crazy and with Iraq being a horrid mess it wouldn't work. But what if Iran attacked us then it might. I'm not saying it would happen but I'm sure Bush has at least thought about it.
09/12/2007 09:35 #41059
The Surge and Petraeus brieflyCategory: politics
It was called a surge,
and the goals were clear.
Those goals were not met,
so bush's Pet, said
"give me a year"
I find it offensive that people are dieing in Iraq, and Bush is using the war as a political football. It seems that bush's only goal is to prolong the war for the next president to deal with, so that he will not be the one in the history books who failed in Iraq. Sure he botched the whole operation , but you can't lose a war that never ends. Like Vietnam, we lost that war because we left, that's bush's logic, remember in august "bush compares Iraq to Vietnam"
There are some BS news headlines floating around like "Bush to support troop pullback" so I have to clear the air a bit. The surge was called a surge because it was a temporary increase. But Bush and Petraeus plan to let the additional 30,000 surge troops go home by next summer. That's a year and a half. And bush says he is agreeing to troop cuts by letting the surge troops leave iraq. No, sorry, that's not a troop cut, that's back to where we started.
Next the numbers
Nothing but creative accounting practices to come up with fuzzy statistics. You know, like Enron. Car bombs don't count.
Most importantly, where are we now and what do we do next. Trust Bush to get er done. No.
Let's ask General John Batiste. I think this is a clear and concise assessment of the war. We have been adjusting the goals in Iraq for the entire war. Now bush has been telling us that as the Iraqi Government stands u, we can stand down. There's an inherrent problem with that and General Batiste put it into words
"Bottom line, we have put our strategic interests in the hands of an incompetent government in Iraq and we are 'waiting to see if Iraqi's can settle their differences.' This is unacceptable."
"America's national strategy for the global war on terror lacks strategic focus. Despite a remarkable performance, our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it; the current "surge" in Iraq is too little, too late; the Government of Iraq is incapable of stepping up to their responsibilities; our nation has yet to mobilize to defeat a serious threat which has little to do with Iraq; and it is past time to refocus our national strategy for the Middle East. The way-ahead is uncertain at best, but it is time to put America's vital interests first. From this point forward, America's strategy must focus on the mission is defeat world-wide Islamic extremism."
General John Batiste's full testimony
I can't say it any better than that.
More reading and video.
Sorry, gotta go to work.
and the goals were clear.
Those goals were not met,
so bush's Pet, said
"give me a year"
I find it offensive that people are dieing in Iraq, and Bush is using the war as a political football. It seems that bush's only goal is to prolong the war for the next president to deal with, so that he will not be the one in the history books who failed in Iraq. Sure he botched the whole operation , but you can't lose a war that never ends. Like Vietnam, we lost that war because we left, that's bush's logic, remember in august "bush compares Iraq to Vietnam"
There are some BS news headlines floating around like "Bush to support troop pullback" so I have to clear the air a bit. The surge was called a surge because it was a temporary increase. But Bush and Petraeus plan to let the additional 30,000 surge troops go home by next summer. That's a year and a half. And bush says he is agreeing to troop cuts by letting the surge troops leave iraq. No, sorry, that's not a troop cut, that's back to where we started.
Next the numbers
Nothing but creative accounting practices to come up with fuzzy statistics. You know, like Enron. Car bombs don't count.
Most importantly, where are we now and what do we do next. Trust Bush to get er done. No.
Let's ask General John Batiste. I think this is a clear and concise assessment of the war. We have been adjusting the goals in Iraq for the entire war. Now bush has been telling us that as the Iraqi Government stands u, we can stand down. There's an inherrent problem with that and General Batiste put it into words
"Bottom line, we have put our strategic interests in the hands of an incompetent government in Iraq and we are 'waiting to see if Iraqi's can settle their differences.' This is unacceptable."
"America's national strategy for the global war on terror lacks strategic focus. Despite a remarkable performance, our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it; the current "surge" in Iraq is too little, too late; the Government of Iraq is incapable of stepping up to their responsibilities; our nation has yet to mobilize to defeat a serious threat which has little to do with Iraq; and it is past time to refocus our national strategy for the Middle East. The way-ahead is uncertain at best, but it is time to put America's vital interests first. From this point forward, America's strategy must focus on the mission is defeat world-wide Islamic extremism."
General John Batiste's full testimony
I can't say it any better than that.
More reading and video.
Sorry, gotta go to work.
carolinian - 09/12/07 17:50
The right doesn't count car bombs in their tally of civilian deaths, the left counts traffic accidents in their tally of troop combat deaths.
Both sides of the political spectrum tend to be selective in the ways they are counting.
The right doesn't count car bombs in their tally of civilian deaths, the left counts traffic accidents in their tally of troop combat deaths.
Both sides of the political spectrum tend to be selective in the ways they are counting.
dcoffee - 09/12/07 16:15
Our military has been successful. That is true. There was a NY Times video online yesterday from Baghdad that showed public markets, and commercial strips that are now open and secured by our troops. Also the Baghdad theme park is open, and people are taking the opportunity to do some things they like. Our Troops have set up checkpoints and made sure that weapons stay out of certain areas, and people are enjoying some ease.
The troops have not failed. The politicians have. We can not leave our troops there forever, Iraq will have to sustain itself eventually. Has the surge gotten us any closer to that? no.
The Iraqi people want us out. They think things will be better when we leave. If we do reduce our presence maybe they can stop complaining about American forces and in their country, and get down to business trying to find a way to coexist. We are a distraction, and an excuse for them to avoid taking responsibility.
As for General Petreus, The Whitehouse turned his report into a political stunt. The whitehouse put so much emphasis on his report, that in the end, they told him what to say and how to say it. And his problem is he listened to them instead of being a professional. However, I don't think he personally should be the target of criticism, he probably hates talking to the whitehouse and just wants to do his job. But we are told to trust his credability above all else, despite the fradulent math he used with a straight face as 'proof' of progress.
As I said above, violence is down, because we stopped counting deaths by car bombs, or gunshots to the front of the head. This is a bush formula, and it's a total fraud. I'm sorry Petraeus is the mouthpiece. But this type of fraud needs to be exposed, move on did it and they were in your face about it. But unlike Swift Boat Vets for Truth smearing John Kerry, this stuff is actually true.
:::link:::
Our military has been successful. That is true. There was a NY Times video online yesterday from Baghdad that showed public markets, and commercial strips that are now open and secured by our troops. Also the Baghdad theme park is open, and people are taking the opportunity to do some things they like. Our Troops have set up checkpoints and made sure that weapons stay out of certain areas, and people are enjoying some ease.
The troops have not failed. The politicians have. We can not leave our troops there forever, Iraq will have to sustain itself eventually. Has the surge gotten us any closer to that? no.
The Iraqi people want us out. They think things will be better when we leave. If we do reduce our presence maybe they can stop complaining about American forces and in their country, and get down to business trying to find a way to coexist. We are a distraction, and an excuse for them to avoid taking responsibility.
As for General Petreus, The Whitehouse turned his report into a political stunt. The whitehouse put so much emphasis on his report, that in the end, they told him what to say and how to say it. And his problem is he listened to them instead of being a professional. However, I don't think he personally should be the target of criticism, he probably hates talking to the whitehouse and just wants to do his job. But we are told to trust his credability above all else, despite the fradulent math he used with a straight face as 'proof' of progress.
As I said above, violence is down, because we stopped counting deaths by car bombs, or gunshots to the front of the head. This is a bush formula, and it's a total fraud. I'm sorry Petraeus is the mouthpiece. But this type of fraud needs to be exposed, move on did it and they were in your face about it. But unlike Swift Boat Vets for Truth smearing John Kerry, this stuff is actually true.
:::link:::
james - 09/12/07 14:57
Joshua: You are right that organizations like moveon use attention grabbing headlines to drum up readership. But give us liberals a break. We don't all read moveon, we don't all like moveon, just like every Republican isn't a neo-facist Christian fundamentalist.
The NYT's has not been a consistently down on the Iraq war. Thomas Friendman and David Brooks have been big supporters of the Iraq war from the start and still support it, but are also critical of the handling of it. Further, it doesn't make any sense for a Dem to denouce moveon publicly, just like it doesn't make any sense for GOPers to denounce Pat Robertson. That is wishful thinking.
And any good news from Iraq is bad news? Do you think that they actually don't want anything good to happen there? And if there is any good news I would love to hear it. What you must be referring to is Dems not swallowing the fake progress being shown in highly armed green zones and not choking down the talking points prepared by the White House for them to read at this green zones.
And critique of solders for killing civilians and inhumane acts isn't exactly out of left field considering there have been dozens of cases (legal, tried cases that is) of soldiers who have killed civilians in cold blood. Abu Graib should speak for itself.
Joshua: You are right that organizations like moveon use attention grabbing headlines to drum up readership. But give us liberals a break. We don't all read moveon, we don't all like moveon, just like every Republican isn't a neo-facist Christian fundamentalist.
The NYT's has not been a consistently down on the Iraq war. Thomas Friendman and David Brooks have been big supporters of the Iraq war from the start and still support it, but are also critical of the handling of it. Further, it doesn't make any sense for a Dem to denouce moveon publicly, just like it doesn't make any sense for GOPers to denounce Pat Robertson. That is wishful thinking.
And any good news from Iraq is bad news? Do you think that they actually don't want anything good to happen there? And if there is any good news I would love to hear it. What you must be referring to is Dems not swallowing the fake progress being shown in highly armed green zones and not choking down the talking points prepared by the White House for them to read at this green zones.
And critique of solders for killing civilians and inhumane acts isn't exactly out of left field considering there have been dozens of cases (legal, tried cases that is) of soldiers who have killed civilians in cold blood. Abu Graib should speak for itself.
jason - 09/12/07 14:02
I think really what people are missing is that there is a stark difference between a military failure and a political failure. The Iraqi government has failed, not our military. People sort of incoherently clump the two together to obfuscate the issue, sometimes on purpose and sometimes out of innocent ignorance.
Really, the Vietnam parallels are so stale and indigestible that I don't even understand why people use them anymore, Bush included. For every instance of comparing Petraeus to Westmoreland, I've got about 10 questions about who represents Vo Nguyen Giap. It is just useless babble.
To me, clearly, the issue has become so obfuscated by politicians on both sides that the bottom line is being ignored. They (Iraq) can't seem to get their shit together, and nobody wants to hear "Well, we'll have our shit together when we're good and ready. Keep on dying." It is more or less a unanimous vote among experts that if we leave them now, it will turn into a free for all. Bush does not want to be responsible for that (even though he is already) and I'll tell you one thing, Hillary Clinton isn't going to be the vote for change either, so don't get your hopes up.
I don't think Petraeus has failed us at all, and I definitely do not side with those low life, rat vomit worms who attack his character. Given the conditions, and the task he was given to accomplish, I think he's done as well as anyone could do. Who has really failed? The Iraqis have. They're not keeping their end of the bargain, and I don't think Americans have the patience to let things continue the way they are for much longer.
I think really what people are missing is that there is a stark difference between a military failure and a political failure. The Iraqi government has failed, not our military. People sort of incoherently clump the two together to obfuscate the issue, sometimes on purpose and sometimes out of innocent ignorance.
Really, the Vietnam parallels are so stale and indigestible that I don't even understand why people use them anymore, Bush included. For every instance of comparing Petraeus to Westmoreland, I've got about 10 questions about who represents Vo Nguyen Giap. It is just useless babble.
To me, clearly, the issue has become so obfuscated by politicians on both sides that the bottom line is being ignored. They (Iraq) can't seem to get their shit together, and nobody wants to hear "Well, we'll have our shit together when we're good and ready. Keep on dying." It is more or less a unanimous vote among experts that if we leave them now, it will turn into a free for all. Bush does not want to be responsible for that (even though he is already) and I'll tell you one thing, Hillary Clinton isn't going to be the vote for change either, so don't get your hopes up.
I don't think Petraeus has failed us at all, and I definitely do not side with those low life, rat vomit worms who attack his character. Given the conditions, and the task he was given to accomplish, I think he's done as well as anyone could do. Who has really failed? The Iraqis have. They're not keeping their end of the bargain, and I don't think Americans have the patience to let things continue the way they are for much longer.
joshua - 09/12/07 10:13
So what do you think about the NYT ad that MoveOn.org paid for, referring to Gen. Petraeus as "Gen. Betray-us?"
Frankly I think this is proof positive that there are a lot of latte-sipping liberals out there that don't know two shits about how to run a war and actively work to undermine the government, but feel entitled to call a career man in uniform a traitor. I'm sorry, but there is nobody at MoveOn that is worthy to even shine the mans 4-star boots. For the matter, how dare some of these idiots that got elected into office treat him as if he's nobody, when he's a 4-star general who has done more for his country than the entirety of MoveOn ever will?
When liberals hear what they want to hear from a military man, they are happy - just ask Wes Clark, at least as long as he's politically relevant. When they do not, he's a liar and a puppet. What kind of fucked up, bipolar, schitzophrenic logic is this? Liberals treat the military with total contempt, which is generally understood by the public, and this was just one of many examples over the past 6 years.
Its completely and utterly disgusting and MoveOn and its little cronies are shit human beings, and I'll tell you another thing - the fact that the Democratic nominees refuse to criticise MoveOn.org over the ad will see them get utterly crucified once the conventions are over. Do the Democrats really believe that they are worthy of being the CIC when they pick MoveOn over the soldiers? If they do, they are clearly having a laugh.
I think this utter folly surrounding the notion that the Democrats "support the troops but not the war" got thrown out the window a loooong time ago. Dick Durbin referring to our own troops as Nazis, Kerry claiming that our troops are terrorizing women in children in the cold of night, Murtha claiming that our soldiers routinely kill civilians in cold blood - none of which is actually true. And we continue to hear Democrats refuse to criticize groups like MoveOn, the rationale being "OHH WE AREN'T FALLING FOR THAT GOP TRICK!" What trick - the one that allows you (rhetorical) to throw the troops under the bus so that you don't have to bite the hand off that feeds you, or the trick that allows you to take the intelligence of the nation for granted by throwing the troops under the bus while still claiming to support them? Fucking hell! This is the sort of logic that will eventually lead to Demos characterizing paying high taxes as a "patriotic virtue."
I'm telling you, the Demos will *not* win in '08 when they have every ability to, if they keep going down this path and lapping up the sour milk that these special interests continue to pour out. America is offended by these sorts of ads... this exact type of thing is why liberals cannot win presidential elections.
This is the bottom line - any good news from Iraq is bad news for liberals. Its just how it is. We all knew that no matter what Petraeus said that it wouldn't be acceptable, so lets just forget about the mistaken notion that the liberals in Congress and everywhere else were going to give Petraeus a fair shake. Its the same behavior that makes me never, ever ever ever want to vote for a Democrat.
So what do you think about the NYT ad that MoveOn.org paid for, referring to Gen. Petraeus as "Gen. Betray-us?"
Frankly I think this is proof positive that there are a lot of latte-sipping liberals out there that don't know two shits about how to run a war and actively work to undermine the government, but feel entitled to call a career man in uniform a traitor. I'm sorry, but there is nobody at MoveOn that is worthy to even shine the mans 4-star boots. For the matter, how dare some of these idiots that got elected into office treat him as if he's nobody, when he's a 4-star general who has done more for his country than the entirety of MoveOn ever will?
When liberals hear what they want to hear from a military man, they are happy - just ask Wes Clark, at least as long as he's politically relevant. When they do not, he's a liar and a puppet. What kind of fucked up, bipolar, schitzophrenic logic is this? Liberals treat the military with total contempt, which is generally understood by the public, and this was just one of many examples over the past 6 years.
Its completely and utterly disgusting and MoveOn and its little cronies are shit human beings, and I'll tell you another thing - the fact that the Democratic nominees refuse to criticise MoveOn.org over the ad will see them get utterly crucified once the conventions are over. Do the Democrats really believe that they are worthy of being the CIC when they pick MoveOn over the soldiers? If they do, they are clearly having a laugh.
I think this utter folly surrounding the notion that the Democrats "support the troops but not the war" got thrown out the window a loooong time ago. Dick Durbin referring to our own troops as Nazis, Kerry claiming that our troops are terrorizing women in children in the cold of night, Murtha claiming that our soldiers routinely kill civilians in cold blood - none of which is actually true. And we continue to hear Democrats refuse to criticize groups like MoveOn, the rationale being "OHH WE AREN'T FALLING FOR THAT GOP TRICK!" What trick - the one that allows you (rhetorical) to throw the troops under the bus so that you don't have to bite the hand off that feeds you, or the trick that allows you to take the intelligence of the nation for granted by throwing the troops under the bus while still claiming to support them? Fucking hell! This is the sort of logic that will eventually lead to Demos characterizing paying high taxes as a "patriotic virtue."
I'm telling you, the Demos will *not* win in '08 when they have every ability to, if they keep going down this path and lapping up the sour milk that these special interests continue to pour out. America is offended by these sorts of ads... this exact type of thing is why liberals cannot win presidential elections.
This is the bottom line - any good news from Iraq is bad news for liberals. Its just how it is. We all knew that no matter what Petraeus said that it wouldn't be acceptable, so lets just forget about the mistaken notion that the liberals in Congress and everywhere else were going to give Petraeus a fair shake. Its the same behavior that makes me never, ever ever ever want to vote for a Democrat.
08/09/2007 01:02 #40451
Lots of NewsCategory: political
Ok, there's a lot of news to comment about. I gotta start somewhere..
I want to talk about the Warrantless Wiretapping program. but first I want to mention the democratic primary and the debate last night on MSNBC.
I was fired up watching the debate. Speaking in front of a union audience in a football stadium. Many of the candidates were straight forward and passionate. Healthcare, campaign contributions, NAFTA, Iraq. The democrats talk about serious issues, and their solutions go the the root causes of the problem. Not all the candidates would make a great president, but some are outstanding, and I'm glad to have them all in public office working to protect me, and all the citizens of this country. Democrats have a great field of candidates to choose from.
I can't find a direct link to the full video on MSNBC, but if you go to this link you can see some of the highlights, and once the video player opens look for a video called "democrats face off in soldier field" that's the full video.
After watching the candidates debate here and on the Youtube debate, and hearing some interviews, I've narrowed it down to three.
Dennis Kucinich - Barak Obamma - and Chris Dodd
Why not the others? Bill Richardson can't handle foreign policy, he's a governor, and hasn't given foreign policy enough thought. John Edwards, I'm not convinced he will work hard enough to change things, though his ideas are good, he's just not convincing, I'm not sure people can rally behind him. Joe Biden is a bit too headstrong and I'm afraid his impulses might lead to some bad decisions. Hilary Clinton, though I'd love to have a woman president, she is too close to the power establishment, and has made a lot of terrible votes, she's soft on universal single-payer healthcare, workers rights, She is trying not to rock the boat, but guess what, the boat is Way the hell off course, and it needs to be rocked. However, after saying all that, she's probably my 4th choice.
Denis Kucinich is my favorite, I'm not convinced he would be the absolute best president yet, but he has the best track record, the best ideas, the most honest passion, and the greatest desire to turn this country around. He was the only one on stage repeatedly answering the tough questions by saying "Yes I support Universal, Single Payer, non-Profit Healthcare for all Americans. In Fact, I introduced legislation a few months ago..." Just paraphrasing his response there, but over and over, he answered questions by talking about a bill he wrote and exactly what it would do. How many jobs would be created, how many people this would help, etc. He's done the work, and crafted legislation on every important issue. Kucinich rocks, our rights and our safety would be best taken care of by him. he is careful deliberative, and driven to do public service for the sake of the public. I'd say he's the most selfless candidate. I'm not sure how other countries and the American people would accept him, but he would make the best decisions on the issues, and he would push hard for the serious change that this country desperately needs.
Kucinich does not parse his words, he's not digging for happy terminology and 8 second sound bites, he knows he is right and speaks straight from his heart. Obamma is a close second here he would make great decisions and be an excellent leader, he's just a little too political. He chooses his words, and tries to tailor his ideas so that people can accept them at face value. The difference is that Kucinnich is always looking out for our best interests, and he doesn't care if you don't agree at first, because it's the right decision. and in a Democracy when you have a free flow of ideas the right decision comes out on top. Open up a thoughtful discussion of any issue and you will see why his ideas make the most sense. He's not affraid to be drastic, this country needs drastic change. That would be the difference between Obamma and Kucinich.
Chris Dodd is third, he stands up for issues that are important to working families. I can't find anything to criticise, though I think the other two would take more risks to do what's right for the country.
I wish out voting system made more sense, so we could continue this robust discussion past the primary season. I'm worried about what will happen when our "2" parties get back to bickering instead of thoughtful debate.
Here's a video from the debate.
I guess that's my synopsis. There's more to talk about but I ran out of time. Wiretapping, Voting, and funding infrastructure, will have to wait for another day.
i should mention one thing though. about the Warantless Wiretapping stuff that congress passed last Friday. It's unconstitutional, 4th amendment. It's illegal search and seizure without a warrant. It's called checks and balances. You know the reason our powerful country has survived over 200 years without tyranny. The executive branch needs to tell someone when it's going to go through your stuff, or else they will abuse that power, no matter who the president is.
Brian Higgins voted for it. He was the only Democrat in NY to vote for this unconstitutional power grab by the president. Why did all the Republicans in the US vote for it I don't know. Conservatives usually want to keep their rights. Whatever. Brian Higgins is a tool. I'm writing a letter, what on earth is he thinking, this is worse than the Bankruptcy bill he voted for. He probably thinks Guantanamo is alright too. Anyway the president can now monitor your computer and phone communication without a warrant. The constitution is in trouble.
Here's the vote
Here's a good summary of why it's so terrible.
Thanks, take care all, talk to you soon.
I want to talk about the Warrantless Wiretapping program. but first I want to mention the democratic primary and the debate last night on MSNBC.
I was fired up watching the debate. Speaking in front of a union audience in a football stadium. Many of the candidates were straight forward and passionate. Healthcare, campaign contributions, NAFTA, Iraq. The democrats talk about serious issues, and their solutions go the the root causes of the problem. Not all the candidates would make a great president, but some are outstanding, and I'm glad to have them all in public office working to protect me, and all the citizens of this country. Democrats have a great field of candidates to choose from.
I can't find a direct link to the full video on MSNBC, but if you go to this link you can see some of the highlights, and once the video player opens look for a video called "democrats face off in soldier field" that's the full video.
After watching the candidates debate here and on the Youtube debate, and hearing some interviews, I've narrowed it down to three.
Dennis Kucinich - Barak Obamma - and Chris Dodd
Why not the others? Bill Richardson can't handle foreign policy, he's a governor, and hasn't given foreign policy enough thought. John Edwards, I'm not convinced he will work hard enough to change things, though his ideas are good, he's just not convincing, I'm not sure people can rally behind him. Joe Biden is a bit too headstrong and I'm afraid his impulses might lead to some bad decisions. Hilary Clinton, though I'd love to have a woman president, she is too close to the power establishment, and has made a lot of terrible votes, she's soft on universal single-payer healthcare, workers rights, She is trying not to rock the boat, but guess what, the boat is Way the hell off course, and it needs to be rocked. However, after saying all that, she's probably my 4th choice.
Denis Kucinich is my favorite, I'm not convinced he would be the absolute best president yet, but he has the best track record, the best ideas, the most honest passion, and the greatest desire to turn this country around. He was the only one on stage repeatedly answering the tough questions by saying "Yes I support Universal, Single Payer, non-Profit Healthcare for all Americans. In Fact, I introduced legislation a few months ago..." Just paraphrasing his response there, but over and over, he answered questions by talking about a bill he wrote and exactly what it would do. How many jobs would be created, how many people this would help, etc. He's done the work, and crafted legislation on every important issue. Kucinich rocks, our rights and our safety would be best taken care of by him. he is careful deliberative, and driven to do public service for the sake of the public. I'd say he's the most selfless candidate. I'm not sure how other countries and the American people would accept him, but he would make the best decisions on the issues, and he would push hard for the serious change that this country desperately needs.
Kucinich does not parse his words, he's not digging for happy terminology and 8 second sound bites, he knows he is right and speaks straight from his heart. Obamma is a close second here he would make great decisions and be an excellent leader, he's just a little too political. He chooses his words, and tries to tailor his ideas so that people can accept them at face value. The difference is that Kucinnich is always looking out for our best interests, and he doesn't care if you don't agree at first, because it's the right decision. and in a Democracy when you have a free flow of ideas the right decision comes out on top. Open up a thoughtful discussion of any issue and you will see why his ideas make the most sense. He's not affraid to be drastic, this country needs drastic change. That would be the difference between Obamma and Kucinich.
Chris Dodd is third, he stands up for issues that are important to working families. I can't find anything to criticise, though I think the other two would take more risks to do what's right for the country.
I wish out voting system made more sense, so we could continue this robust discussion past the primary season. I'm worried about what will happen when our "2" parties get back to bickering instead of thoughtful debate.
Here's a video from the debate.
I guess that's my synopsis. There's more to talk about but I ran out of time. Wiretapping, Voting, and funding infrastructure, will have to wait for another day.
i should mention one thing though. about the Warantless Wiretapping stuff that congress passed last Friday. It's unconstitutional, 4th amendment. It's illegal search and seizure without a warrant. It's called checks and balances. You know the reason our powerful country has survived over 200 years without tyranny. The executive branch needs to tell someone when it's going to go through your stuff, or else they will abuse that power, no matter who the president is.
Brian Higgins voted for it. He was the only Democrat in NY to vote for this unconstitutional power grab by the president. Why did all the Republicans in the US vote for it I don't know. Conservatives usually want to keep their rights. Whatever. Brian Higgins is a tool. I'm writing a letter, what on earth is he thinking, this is worse than the Bankruptcy bill he voted for. He probably thinks Guantanamo is alright too. Anyway the president can now monitor your computer and phone communication without a warrant. The constitution is in trouble.
Here's the vote
Here's a good summary of why it's so terrible.
Thanks, take care all, talk to you soon.
libertad - 08/12/07 11:30
I finally got through all of the debate after watching it on youtube. On future debates I believe that microphones should be cut when time is up. Why should candidates be awarded for being arrogant and ignoring the time restraints? Why not penalize the candidates whom don't answer the question asked or go off topic by giving them less time to speak on their next question?
Although I could be persuaded to change as we head towards elections, I currently stand behind Kucinich. I wish that he had more opportunity to talk during debates that seem to center on Hillary and Obama. At this point I trust Kucinich to do the right thing. I believe what he is saying and I also find his straight answers refreshing. BTW his wife is hot.
I finally got through all of the debate after watching it on youtube. On future debates I believe that microphones should be cut when time is up. Why should candidates be awarded for being arrogant and ignoring the time restraints? Why not penalize the candidates whom don't answer the question asked or go off topic by giving them less time to speak on their next question?
Although I could be persuaded to change as we head towards elections, I currently stand behind Kucinich. I wish that he had more opportunity to talk during debates that seem to center on Hillary and Obama. At this point I trust Kucinich to do the right thing. I believe what he is saying and I also find his straight answers refreshing. BTW his wife is hot.
dcoffee - 08/09/07 17:06
Thanks for correcting me on Bill Richardson. I didn't know much about his background. He just doesn't articulate as well as the others I guess.
Regarding the concentration of power in one branch of the government or another. In this case we're talking about Wiretaps, we could be talking about the power to declare war, propose a budget, change tax policy, manage the market, govern the schools or whatever.
We have separation of powers and checks and balances for a reason. The American system has existed for over 200 years we take government for granted, we are insulated from the abuses of power and the tyranny that caused to founding fathers to flee their home countries and declare independence from england.
We should be skeptical of power. That's the point, that's what makes our democracy work, it's checks and balances. Don't give your government unchecked power, if you do you are forced to trust the PERSON, instead of the SYSTEM to guarantee your rights and safety. Sure some people have a paranoid personality, but none of us should trust any one branch of government to moderate its own power.
Warentless Wiretapping steps over the line, the president doesn't have to tell anybody whose conversations he is monitoring. T
Thanks for correcting me on Bill Richardson. I didn't know much about his background. He just doesn't articulate as well as the others I guess.
Regarding the concentration of power in one branch of the government or another. In this case we're talking about Wiretaps, we could be talking about the power to declare war, propose a budget, change tax policy, manage the market, govern the schools or whatever.
We have separation of powers and checks and balances for a reason. The American system has existed for over 200 years we take government for granted, we are insulated from the abuses of power and the tyranny that caused to founding fathers to flee their home countries and declare independence from england.
We should be skeptical of power. That's the point, that's what makes our democracy work, it's checks and balances. Don't give your government unchecked power, if you do you are forced to trust the PERSON, instead of the SYSTEM to guarantee your rights and safety. Sure some people have a paranoid personality, but none of us should trust any one branch of government to moderate its own power.
Warentless Wiretapping steps over the line, the president doesn't have to tell anybody whose conversations he is monitoring. T
joshua - 08/09/07 12:32
I actually forgot a few things -
Firstly, bravo for being one of the few who are actually paying attention to the debates... I think the last one charted less than a million viewers nationally. The question about whether or not people are getting tired of the debates has been answered as far as I'm concerned.
By the way. The concept of offering special interests their own debates is going to go off horribly once the general election comes around.
Totally unrelated, but did you hear about the idea of a bloggers labor union? I could be wrong but I think it was brought up at this panderfest known as the Kos convention, but I don't remember exactly... I heard of this on NPR this week while going to work. I heard quotes from bloggers saying stuff like, 'yeah, it would be nice if we get organized... maybe we can get health insurance!' Are these people fucking stupid? Who is going to pay for any of it? I thought the comments were severely bubbleheaded.
I completely forgot to mention Bill Richardson's credentials so thank you for that (e:blotics). He is a professional diplomat, and as far as qualifications go he is the only one that has credible experience with foreign policy.... just not his own! =)
The Republican party is not fractured, but the ambivalence with the current set of candidates is obvious. You simply cannot, as a Republican, ignore the base and gamble by trying to compensate with independent voters! I'm not compelled by any of them at the moment, and I'm one of the few here that are even willing to give them a chance. The *only* candidate that can galvanize the party is Fred Thompson.
(e:dcoffee) - your discussion about FISA and how it works is a symptom of a much larger problem - most Americans do not know how this works and largely do not care anyway. I'm not going to pretend that I know the techical details of how tapping outgoing calls to suspected terrorists singularly could be achieved. Making any assumptions about the technical details would be impractical in my view... even people with the technical knowledge are more than likely not privy to the some of the technology implemented by the government to achieve this, which obviously (some of it, anyway) would be of a classified nature.
I've never been comfortable with the objections of people who do not like the idea of wiretaps. The reason is because the objections largely are based on a long list of assumptions, "what ifs," and even worse, what all of this stuff means politically. I am 100% for fully vetting the pros and cons of such a program, but I doubt the wisdom in making a series of conclusions based on speculation and fear. Is there *no* issue that liberals feel is political in nature? Are all of the objections to this law going to disappear once a Republican is not in office... similar to how all objections concerning "stolen elections" disappeared when the Democrats took the Congress last fall and the "right guys" won?
I actually forgot a few things -
Firstly, bravo for being one of the few who are actually paying attention to the debates... I think the last one charted less than a million viewers nationally. The question about whether or not people are getting tired of the debates has been answered as far as I'm concerned.
By the way. The concept of offering special interests their own debates is going to go off horribly once the general election comes around.
Totally unrelated, but did you hear about the idea of a bloggers labor union? I could be wrong but I think it was brought up at this panderfest known as the Kos convention, but I don't remember exactly... I heard of this on NPR this week while going to work. I heard quotes from bloggers saying stuff like, 'yeah, it would be nice if we get organized... maybe we can get health insurance!' Are these people fucking stupid? Who is going to pay for any of it? I thought the comments were severely bubbleheaded.
I completely forgot to mention Bill Richardson's credentials so thank you for that (e:blotics). He is a professional diplomat, and as far as qualifications go he is the only one that has credible experience with foreign policy.... just not his own! =)
The Republican party is not fractured, but the ambivalence with the current set of candidates is obvious. You simply cannot, as a Republican, ignore the base and gamble by trying to compensate with independent voters! I'm not compelled by any of them at the moment, and I'm one of the few here that are even willing to give them a chance. The *only* candidate that can galvanize the party is Fred Thompson.
(e:dcoffee) - your discussion about FISA and how it works is a symptom of a much larger problem - most Americans do not know how this works and largely do not care anyway. I'm not going to pretend that I know the techical details of how tapping outgoing calls to suspected terrorists singularly could be achieved. Making any assumptions about the technical details would be impractical in my view... even people with the technical knowledge are more than likely not privy to the some of the technology implemented by the government to achieve this, which obviously (some of it, anyway) would be of a classified nature.
I've never been comfortable with the objections of people who do not like the idea of wiretaps. The reason is because the objections largely are based on a long list of assumptions, "what ifs," and even worse, what all of this stuff means politically. I am 100% for fully vetting the pros and cons of such a program, but I doubt the wisdom in making a series of conclusions based on speculation and fear. Is there *no* issue that liberals feel is political in nature? Are all of the objections to this law going to disappear once a Republican is not in office... similar to how all objections concerning "stolen elections" disappeared when the Democrats took the Congress last fall and the "right guys" won?
libertad - 08/09/07 11:17
I haven't watched the debate yet. I was glad that you linked to it. When I started watching it, I got a phone call and had to pause it. After returning, I got this message saying I did something illegal and my computer froze up for a good while.
I'm very disappointed with Hillary. Her foreign policy sucks and I think she is way too much of a politician. She lacks courage and tries to mask it by being overly aggressive as if to overcompensate for being a woman. I was turned off by her hostility towards Cuba and Venezuela during the youtube debate when asked if she would be willing to meet with their leaders along with Iran and North Korea. The tone that she was using when she said their names (Castro and Chavez) was hostile and she seemed more concerned with Cuba and Venezuela than North Korea. It just seemed strange and unbalanced that she focused her hostilities on countries that really don't threaten our national security like Iran and N. Korea do. And she thinks she is going to be used as a propaganda tool? She is a propaganda tool.
Also, she admits that she would not rule out using a Nuke in the hopes of killing terrorists! She is clearly out of her mind and should spend some time talking to survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki so she can fully understand the implications of what she is saying. The last person we need running our country is someone with a hostile and threatening attitude when it comes to nuclear arms. I'm truly disgusted and will not vote for her in the primaries. We can only hope that she continues to reveal her true nature before the election. Thanks for IRAQ Hillary!
I haven't watched the debate yet. I was glad that you linked to it. When I started watching it, I got a phone call and had to pause it. After returning, I got this message saying I did something illegal and my computer froze up for a good while.
I'm very disappointed with Hillary. Her foreign policy sucks and I think she is way too much of a politician. She lacks courage and tries to mask it by being overly aggressive as if to overcompensate for being a woman. I was turned off by her hostility towards Cuba and Venezuela during the youtube debate when asked if she would be willing to meet with their leaders along with Iran and North Korea. The tone that she was using when she said their names (Castro and Chavez) was hostile and she seemed more concerned with Cuba and Venezuela than North Korea. It just seemed strange and unbalanced that she focused her hostilities on countries that really don't threaten our national security like Iran and N. Korea do. And she thinks she is going to be used as a propaganda tool? She is a propaganda tool.
Also, she admits that she would not rule out using a Nuke in the hopes of killing terrorists! She is clearly out of her mind and should spend some time talking to survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki so she can fully understand the implications of what she is saying. The last person we need running our country is someone with a hostile and threatening attitude when it comes to nuclear arms. I'm truly disgusted and will not vote for her in the primaries. We can only hope that she continues to reveal her true nature before the election. Thanks for IRAQ Hillary!
bloticsblog - 08/09/07 10:01
I agree with a lot of what you say about Kucinich and blogged about it on my blogspot site: :::link:::
You can't accuse him of flip flopping to be sure. He answers questions directly, and that sets him apart in the debates and in politics in general.
Bill Richardson, despite being a governor, is quite versed in foreign affairs. He represented New Mexico in Congress for 14 years, and more telling, he was Clinton's Ambassador to the United Nations near the end of his second term. He has also negotiated hostage releases for the US in several countries, including Iraq in the mid-90's.
I haven't agreed with Richardson on a few issues, but I think he would be a fine addition to anyone's ticket as a VP candidate.
I agree with a lot of what you say about Kucinich and blogged about it on my blogspot site: :::link:::
You can't accuse him of flip flopping to be sure. He answers questions directly, and that sets him apart in the debates and in politics in general.
Bill Richardson, despite being a governor, is quite versed in foreign affairs. He represented New Mexico in Congress for 14 years, and more telling, he was Clinton's Ambassador to the United Nations near the end of his second term. He has also negotiated hostage releases for the US in several countries, including Iraq in the mid-90's.
I haven't agreed with Richardson on a few issues, but I think he would be a fine addition to anyone's ticket as a VP candidate.
dcoffee - 08/09/07 09:45
The Novak article notes that the Republicans sold out their base too. I don't get it, what's wrong with the republican party? they are so concerned about beating the other "team" that they will shred the constitution simply for the hope that it will give them an opportunity to play the "soft on terrorism" card. these political games are killing us.
The old FISA law was that the president could tap anyone he wanted and he had 72 hours to even Apply for a warrant, from the secret FISA court. Just checking in and making a semi public record of what he was doing. That's it, a measly bit of oversight. Conservatives were pissed about this law when it was enacted because of the creation of a new secret court.
the legitimate problem with FISA is that communication has changed, and now foreign calls are routed through fiber optic telecommunications hubs which are on US soil. The administration could have some leniency here. The way they would monitor the lines is by installing a computer in the fiber optic network to monitor data transfer. I don't see how they could just store data transmitted by foreigners (I'm looking for some communications geeks to help me figure how this stuff would be implemented). It seems like the machine would create a database of everything that went over the lines, and someone would have to call up something specific from this packed database. wouldn't they just store all the data, for at least a few days, before writing over it? why wouldn't some guy kicking back in his office listen to Harry Reid or Hillary Clinton, just for kicks?
Here's another good video discussing the FISA wiretapping revisions.
:::link:::
The Novak article notes that the Republicans sold out their base too. I don't get it, what's wrong with the republican party? they are so concerned about beating the other "team" that they will shred the constitution simply for the hope that it will give them an opportunity to play the "soft on terrorism" card. these political games are killing us.
The old FISA law was that the president could tap anyone he wanted and he had 72 hours to even Apply for a warrant, from the secret FISA court. Just checking in and making a semi public record of what he was doing. That's it, a measly bit of oversight. Conservatives were pissed about this law when it was enacted because of the creation of a new secret court.
the legitimate problem with FISA is that communication has changed, and now foreign calls are routed through fiber optic telecommunications hubs which are on US soil. The administration could have some leniency here. The way they would monitor the lines is by installing a computer in the fiber optic network to monitor data transfer. I don't see how they could just store data transmitted by foreigners (I'm looking for some communications geeks to help me figure how this stuff would be implemented). It seems like the machine would create a database of everything that went over the lines, and someone would have to call up something specific from this packed database. wouldn't they just store all the data, for at least a few days, before writing over it? why wouldn't some guy kicking back in his office listen to Harry Reid or Hillary Clinton, just for kicks?
Here's another good video discussing the FISA wiretapping revisions.
:::link:::
joshua - 08/09/07 09:25
You were being nice - I think Chris Dodd is a turd!
I don't think Kucinich is electable but I've always respected him. That is definitely one guy that sticks to his guns (unfortunate phrasing there, but whatever).
Barack Obama is too naive to be the POTUS... this is why he's 22 pts. behind Hillary in the polls. Its still early but I can't see anybody but Hillary getting the nomination, which, if in fact happens as it looks it will, essentially means that I'm definitely not voting for a Democrat in '08. I will *never* vote for Hillary Clinton.
I've never been more open to a 3rd party candidate before.
You were being nice - I think Chris Dodd is a turd!
I don't think Kucinich is electable but I've always respected him. That is definitely one guy that sticks to his guns (unfortunate phrasing there, but whatever).
Barack Obama is too naive to be the POTUS... this is why he's 22 pts. behind Hillary in the polls. Its still early but I can't see anybody but Hillary getting the nomination, which, if in fact happens as it looks it will, essentially means that I'm definitely not voting for a Democrat in '08. I will *never* vote for Hillary Clinton.
I've never been more open to a 3rd party candidate before.
jason - 08/09/07 08:55
I agree with a lot of what you say about Kucinich, although I don't exactly see eye to eye with him on all of the issues. He just seems to be by far the most honest of the Dem candidates. He isn't afraid to say exactly what his position is, without mincing words, and he's not afraid to face the big, bad Brit Hume. He isn't so interested in the media games. I give him a lot of credit.
Robert Novak wrote a very interesting column about the eavesdropping situation:
:::link:::
I love politicians. They don't vote against it because of political implications, then go ahead and shift the blame for their failure to someone else (as usual), this time the DNI.
Of course, I think we should be monitoring terrorist communication. That's a no-brainer. The slippery slope theory is in play now, and in my experience people tend to only believe that theory in situations where they oppose the vote. Other situations? Nahhh it's silly, kooky. This program should be heavily, heavily monitored by Congress to prevent abuse. They need to own this now.
I agree with a lot of what you say about Kucinich, although I don't exactly see eye to eye with him on all of the issues. He just seems to be by far the most honest of the Dem candidates. He isn't afraid to say exactly what his position is, without mincing words, and he's not afraid to face the big, bad Brit Hume. He isn't so interested in the media games. I give him a lot of credit.
Robert Novak wrote a very interesting column about the eavesdropping situation:
:::link:::
I love politicians. They don't vote against it because of political implications, then go ahead and shift the blame for their failure to someone else (as usual), this time the DNI.
Of course, I think we should be monitoring terrorist communication. That's a no-brainer. The slippery slope theory is in play now, and in my experience people tend to only believe that theory in situations where they oppose the vote. Other situations? Nahhh it's silly, kooky. This program should be heavily, heavily monitored by Congress to prevent abuse. They need to own this now.
If the Democrats even sniffed a molecule of victory and mass appeal after de-funding the war, they would have done it far long ago, to bury the Republicans for good. That should tell us something about how they think it would shake out.
Congress knows full well, and they admit it al the time on programs like Meet the Press, there are only two ways this war is realistically going to end. The quickest way, and the most legitimate way Constitutionally, is to de-fund it. The second way is to elect a Democrat to the White House in 08 that will certainly end it. With Hillary, who you can count on getting the nomination for the Democrats, you are not going to get that.
Personally, I think the anger is misplaced, or perhaps at least not shared equitably. If you are mad that the war isn't ending, blame it on the people you voted for who promised a change in policy (something they probably knew they couldn't deliver). Blame them for using these stupid bills to try and coerce Bush into doing something he most certainly will not do of his own volition. If you want to end the war "yesterday" you want to de-fund it. That's really the only way I think it will happen.
yes James, Warner's flip is the worst, especially since the amendment was, like so much else that congress has done, essentially a "suggestion." I have to think that he was threatened/bought off in some way.
I really do think it is time for the Dems to de-fund the whole thing. I do believe it would be seen as heroic, but they lack either brains or nuts or both.
I like your updates, thanks for giving them.
The Senate thing is crazy. Without a doubt, our veterans need time at home (and hospitals, and compensation, and armor, and Geneva convention protection, and to be dealt with honestly . . .)
The problem, for the republicans is that the war falls apart if the troops get what they need. There just aren't enough of them. Maybe there would be more soldiers recruited if we treated them well, but we can't afford to treat them well and maintain our level of engagement so we can't recruit more. It's a horrible cycle in which not only regular and reserve military get abused, but also our national guard, who did not sign up for this and who cannot do what they need to at home because they are overseas.
Our policies make a joke of the mantra, "support our troops." They really mean, "support the war."
And "homeland security?" Not likely. Everybody that is supposed to protect our home is being used up by this conflict.
Everyday I get more glad that I live a short drive from Canada. I love everything that America stands for, but I might have to cross the border to actually experience it soon.
Wow. I am having a cynical morning. I guess I should just be glad that I am past prime drafting age.
Hey, if there were 56 votes for the Webb amendment, that means some Republicans can't be all bad. Just to be fair to them.
At their current rate the GOP is set to not just break the record for most filibusters, but also tripling the number! It is one reason I don't care for the 'us vs them' mentality. It makes the minority party feel like a few elves, dwarfs, and men at the gates of Mordor.
Even more odd with the Webb amendment was the Warner bill which was a toothless, non-binding version of the Webb amendment. Warner had worked with Webb on the amendment and then did the ol' switcher-oo. James Wolcott called Warner a "Termite-ridden Treebeard tottering off towards extinction."
Which makes two Tolkein references in this comment.