Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In U.S. War On Iraq 1,139,602
Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In U.S. War And Occupation Of Iraq 3,896
Cost of U.S. War and Occupation of Iraq $478,951,779,066
Source
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Music Producer Dame Dash being Sued
Another day, another lawsuit. An Atlanta woman, Jamie Roberts, 24, claims that she was diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder after a random encounter with Damon Dash back in 2004. She is suing Dash for $30,000 and claims that he made her crazy after meeting him in Miami:
The bizarre suit, which Roberts, 24, wrote up herself, says she met Dash at a Miami club that March, where he inexplicably used the name “Jeremy McIntyre” and took her to a nearby marina. There he showed her “his genital area” in an “offensive manner” and tried to force her into performing oral sex, the suit claims. Nine months later, Roberts said she “began to hear defendant’s voice in her ear, giving her certain directions to follow.” The suit says she discovered McIntyre’s true identity in early 2005 “while watching a taping of the “Dave Chapelle Show.”
This sounds like pure comedy. Broads going crazy over some “D” and writing up their own lawsuits. What’s even funnier is that she discovered who he was after watching the “Roca Pads” episode of Chappelle’s Show.
Damon Dash made a statement on the situation: “We know nothing about it. It’s quite obvious this is a false allegation.”
Source
The bizarre suit, which Roberts, 24, wrote up herself, says she met Dash at a Miami club that March, where he inexplicably used the name “Jeremy McIntyre” and took her to a nearby marina. There he showed her “his genital area” in an “offensive manner” and tried to force her into performing oral sex, the suit claims. Nine months later, Roberts said she “began to hear defendant’s voice in her ear, giving her certain directions to follow.” The suit says she discovered McIntyre’s true identity in early 2005 “while watching a taping of the “Dave Chapelle Show.”
This sounds like pure comedy. Broads going crazy over some “D” and writing up their own lawsuits. What’s even funnier is that she discovered who he was after watching the “Roca Pads” episode of Chappelle’s Show.
Damon Dash made a statement on the situation: “We know nothing about it. It’s quite obvious this is a false allegation.”
Source
Is the current Anti-Immigration Movement Racist?
by Lee Cokorinos
It is true that growing immigrant populations are transforming the United States, but one ancient aspect of Americana remains intact: racial supremacist dreams of a "white" nation. The notion that the United States was and should forever be a White Man's Country - once the accepted creed and rationale of the Republic - resurfaces in hysterical form and very prominent places in the national discourse. In academia, electoral politics, mass media, and revived racist movements on the ground, corporate-funded anti-immigrant forces combine with age-old anti-Black formations to rally against diversity as "a dire threat to ‘the core culture.'" White "nativist movements" are once again called forth to confront the "mortal danger" posed by The Other.
Prominent leaders of the anti-immigration movement would have us believe that not an ounce of racism lies behind their efforts. The most media-visible figures in this camp, such as Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo and Victor Davis Hanson may argue the case for restricting, deporting, rounding up and cutting off public services to those "illegals" stigmatized as culturally backward, unhealthy potential terrorists. But they protest that their motives for doing so are as pure as the driven snow.
In their writings and media appearances, the leaders of the anti-immigration movement claim their politics are based not on a hatred of the racial Other but on their commitment to the rule of law, the integrity of "our culture," the objective findings of social science, or better employment prospects for American workers.
On page after page of In Mortal Danger, Tom Tancredo's diatribe against non-European immigrants and multiculturalism, the presidential candidate and congressman repeatedly complains that he and his colleagues have been unfairly painted as racist or had their arguments misconstrued as racist.
But alongside these complaints Tancredo's book drips with cultural condescension toward Mexican-Americans, Muslims and African-Americans. While he claims that illegality is the problem, Tancredo soon moves past this and calls for revoking the legal citizenship of what he terms Mexican-American "anchor babies." Conjuring up racist and sexist imagery, he declares that "gravid wombs should not guarantee free medical care." One wonders whether Tancredo, both of whose grandparents immigrated to the U.S. from Italy, would apply such terminology to his parents, and thus forfeit his own citizenship.
Read more
It is true that growing immigrant populations are transforming the United States, but one ancient aspect of Americana remains intact: racial supremacist dreams of a "white" nation. The notion that the United States was and should forever be a White Man's Country - once the accepted creed and rationale of the Republic - resurfaces in hysterical form and very prominent places in the national discourse. In academia, electoral politics, mass media, and revived racist movements on the ground, corporate-funded anti-immigrant forces combine with age-old anti-Black formations to rally against diversity as "a dire threat to ‘the core culture.'" White "nativist movements" are once again called forth to confront the "mortal danger" posed by The Other.
Prominent leaders of the anti-immigration movement would have us believe that not an ounce of racism lies behind their efforts. The most media-visible figures in this camp, such as Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo and Victor Davis Hanson may argue the case for restricting, deporting, rounding up and cutting off public services to those "illegals" stigmatized as culturally backward, unhealthy potential terrorists. But they protest that their motives for doing so are as pure as the driven snow.
In their writings and media appearances, the leaders of the anti-immigration movement claim their politics are based not on a hatred of the racial Other but on their commitment to the rule of law, the integrity of "our culture," the objective findings of social science, or better employment prospects for American workers.
On page after page of In Mortal Danger, Tom Tancredo's diatribe against non-European immigrants and multiculturalism, the presidential candidate and congressman repeatedly complains that he and his colleagues have been unfairly painted as racist or had their arguments misconstrued as racist.
But alongside these complaints Tancredo's book drips with cultural condescension toward Mexican-Americans, Muslims and African-Americans. While he claims that illegality is the problem, Tancredo soon moves past this and calls for revoking the legal citizenship of what he terms Mexican-American "anchor babies." Conjuring up racist and sexist imagery, he declares that "gravid wombs should not guarantee free medical care." One wonders whether Tancredo, both of whose grandparents immigrated to the U.S. from Italy, would apply such terminology to his parents, and thus forfeit his own citizenship.
Read more
Could Obama be considering Republican Chuck Hagel as a running mate?
Omaha, NE.- Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel's name has surfaced once again in the race for the White House.
But this time it's with the Democrats.
For months the speculation has been that Hagel would run as an independent with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; Bloomberg at the top of the ticket, Hagel his vice-president.
But now its Hagel and Democrat Barack Obama; Obama of course has campaigned as the candidate for change.
So now there's speculation that if Obama wins the Democrat nomination, real change would find him naming a Republican as his running mate.
A Republican, like Hagel, who has been constantly critical of the Bush administration's handling of the War in Iraq.
National political columnist Roger Simon says Obama could pick Hagel as his number two, and Hagel would "reach out to anti-war Republicans."
Senator Hagel isn't commenting on any of this, and if it sounds far fetched that Hagel could go to the Democratic convention next year as the Vice-Presidential candidate, keep this in mind.
In the last few days Hagel joined a Washington think tank known as the American Security Project.
It was started earlier this year by Senator John Kerrey and former Senator Gary Hart, two Democrats.
http://action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=7499820
But this time it's with the Democrats.
For months the speculation has been that Hagel would run as an independent with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; Bloomberg at the top of the ticket, Hagel his vice-president.
But now its Hagel and Democrat Barack Obama; Obama of course has campaigned as the candidate for change.
So now there's speculation that if Obama wins the Democrat nomination, real change would find him naming a Republican as his running mate.
A Republican, like Hagel, who has been constantly critical of the Bush administration's handling of the War in Iraq.
National political columnist Roger Simon says Obama could pick Hagel as his number two, and Hagel would "reach out to anti-war Republicans."
Senator Hagel isn't commenting on any of this, and if it sounds far fetched that Hagel could go to the Democratic convention next year as the Vice-Presidential candidate, keep this in mind.
In the last few days Hagel joined a Washington think tank known as the American Security Project.
It was started earlier this year by Senator John Kerrey and former Senator Gary Hart, two Democrats.
http://action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=7499820
Rudy Giuliani a true Facist
The latest issue of American Conservative issue features a cover story titled "Declaring Forever War: Giuliani has surrounded himself with advisors who think the Bush Doctrine didn't go nearly far enough."The cover image depicts Rudy Giuliani in fascist garb:
I personally think Rudi Giuliani would be one dangerous president, he would be like Bush on steroids, IMO.
Hopelessness in America
by Leon Fisher
There is little to be hopeful about. The money pouring into Washington from the powerful lobbies and special interest groups has trumped any real representation which may still exist for the common man in America. The Washington politicians and their corporate benefactors hold the citizens of this country in contempt and are working to remove any influence which they still have left.
The elections have become frauds, with only candidates running who are acceptable to the power elite in Washington and Wall St. No, and there is not much to look forward to. The economy is tanking, the wars continuing, and Bush and his rubber stamp Congress passing ever more legislation stripping Americans of their Constitutional rights.
As for candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, who hold out the promise of a return to Constitutional government, forget about it. The major news media is all but ignoring both candidates and even if Paul or Kucinich get the lions share of the vote, the result will be manipulated to give us a Clinton or a Giuliani.
We can only wait and see what happens. Hopefully the whole rotten system will collapse upon itself, and only then will we have an opportunity to restore to America a legitimate government beholden to the people.
There is little to be hopeful about. The money pouring into Washington from the powerful lobbies and special interest groups has trumped any real representation which may still exist for the common man in America. The Washington politicians and their corporate benefactors hold the citizens of this country in contempt and are working to remove any influence which they still have left.
The elections have become frauds, with only candidates running who are acceptable to the power elite in Washington and Wall St. No, and there is not much to look forward to. The economy is tanking, the wars continuing, and Bush and his rubber stamp Congress passing ever more legislation stripping Americans of their Constitutional rights.
As for candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, who hold out the promise of a return to Constitutional government, forget about it. The major news media is all but ignoring both candidates and even if Paul or Kucinich get the lions share of the vote, the result will be manipulated to give us a Clinton or a Giuliani.
We can only wait and see what happens. Hopefully the whole rotten system will collapse upon itself, and only then will we have an opportunity to restore to America a legitimate government beholden to the people.
The Vote for Endless War
On Tuesday, December 18, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate combined to give President Bush $70 billion to carry the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into next summer. Only 23 Democrats and one independent supported an amendment by Senator Feingold that would have required the safe redeployment of troops from Iraq. Here are the senators who voted to end the war:
Akaka (D-HI) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)
Next summer, when the money runs out, a cutoff of funds will be unimaginable. The election will be too close. So our troops are committed till the end of the president's term; after all the talk, the Democrats have ended by obeying him. This capitulation marks the climax of one of the most extraordinary displays in history of a complex phenomenon: power wielded in the face of popular rejection, and power surrendered in spite of overwhelming public support. A president whose policy was disapproved by more than half of the American people chose to defy a majority whose midterm victory he himself had called "a rout." And the majority, saying they wished things were different, pleading the necessity of 60 rather than 50 votes, but never exacting reprisals or driving a hard bargain against defectors from their own ranks--the majority, again and again, backed down.
This definitive result of the 110th Congress will confirm the popular feeling that George W. Bush believes in his disaster more than the Democrats believe in anything.
Link
******
This Iraq debacle has got to be one of the biggest waste of money since the Vietnam War. It's a damn shame Americans never learn.
Akaka (D-HI) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)
Next summer, when the money runs out, a cutoff of funds will be unimaginable. The election will be too close. So our troops are committed till the end of the president's term; after all the talk, the Democrats have ended by obeying him. This capitulation marks the climax of one of the most extraordinary displays in history of a complex phenomenon: power wielded in the face of popular rejection, and power surrendered in spite of overwhelming public support. A president whose policy was disapproved by more than half of the American people chose to defy a majority whose midterm victory he himself had called "a rout." And the majority, saying they wished things were different, pleading the necessity of 60 rather than 50 votes, but never exacting reprisals or driving a hard bargain against defectors from their own ranks--the majority, again and again, backed down.
This definitive result of the 110th Congress will confirm the popular feeling that George W. Bush believes in his disaster more than the Democrats believe in anything.
Link
******
This Iraq debacle has got to be one of the biggest waste of money since the Vietnam War. It's a damn shame Americans never learn.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
UK has left behind murder and chaos, says Basra police chief
Blunt assessment delivered as British hand over security to Iraqis
The full scale of the chaos left behind by British forces in Basra was revealed yesterday as the city's police chief described a province in the grip of well-armed militias strong enough to overpower security forces and brutal enough to behead women considered not sufficiently Islamic.
As British forces finally handed over security in Basra province, marking the end of 4½ years of control in southern Iraq, Major General Jalil Khalaf, the new police commander, said the occupation had left him with a situation close to mayhem. "They left me militia, they left me gangsters, and they left me all the troubles in the world," he said in an in an interview for Guardian Films and ITV.
Khalaf painted a very different picture from that of British officials who, while acknowledging problems in southern Iraq, said yesterday's handover at Basra airbase was timely and appropriate.
Major General Graham Binns, who led British troops into the city in 2003, said the province had "begun to regain its strength". He added: "I came to rid Basra of its enemies and I now formally hand Basra back to its friends."
But in the film, to be broadcast on the Guardian Unlimited website and ITV News, Khalaf lists a catalogue of failings, saying:
Basra has become so lawless that in the last three months 45 women have been killed for being "immoral" because they were not fully covered or because they may have given birth outside wedlock;
The British unintentionally rearmed Shia militias by failing to recognise that Iraqi troops were loyal to more than one authority;
Shia militia are better armed than his men and control Iraq's main port.
-----Snip-----------
Source
Looks like America has a hell of challenge on their hand, if we don't get run out there we will be there for decades trying to fix this.
The full scale of the chaos left behind by British forces in Basra was revealed yesterday as the city's police chief described a province in the grip of well-armed militias strong enough to overpower security forces and brutal enough to behead women considered not sufficiently Islamic.
As British forces finally handed over security in Basra province, marking the end of 4½ years of control in southern Iraq, Major General Jalil Khalaf, the new police commander, said the occupation had left him with a situation close to mayhem. "They left me militia, they left me gangsters, and they left me all the troubles in the world," he said in an in an interview for Guardian Films and ITV.
Khalaf painted a very different picture from that of British officials who, while acknowledging problems in southern Iraq, said yesterday's handover at Basra airbase was timely and appropriate.
Major General Graham Binns, who led British troops into the city in 2003, said the province had "begun to regain its strength". He added: "I came to rid Basra of its enemies and I now formally hand Basra back to its friends."
But in the film, to be broadcast on the Guardian Unlimited website and ITV News, Khalaf lists a catalogue of failings, saying:
Basra has become so lawless that in the last three months 45 women have been killed for being "immoral" because they were not fully covered or because they may have given birth outside wedlock;
The British unintentionally rearmed Shia militias by failing to recognise that Iraqi troops were loyal to more than one authority;
Shia militia are better armed than his men and control Iraq's main port.
-----Snip-----------
Source
Looks like America has a hell of challenge on their hand, if we don't get run out there we will be there for decades trying to fix this.
The Rich Are Getting Richer Faster, Much Faster
The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows.
The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.
The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.
******
Link
Gee, I wonder how that happened, who's responsible for this trend. It's seems the Reagan Legacy lives on unchallenged. Welcome to the New World order folks.
The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.
The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.
******
Link
Gee, I wonder how that happened, who's responsible for this trend. It's seems the Reagan Legacy lives on unchallenged. Welcome to the New World order folks.
Mitt's Romneys' Racist Religion
Mitt Romney on "Meet the Press" today turned emotional as he recalled the day in 1978 he learned over his car radio that his Mormon church had finally dropped its full membership barriers to blacks. He may have even shed a tear on camera, or as Drudge has it in a headline at the top of his site: MITT TEARS ON MTP. He had cried that day in 1978, too, allegedly so happy the black ban had finally collapsed.
You'd hardly know that, fact is, Romney had done absolutely nothing about fighting this racist barrier before his epiphany in his car.The Mormon Church considered blacks spiritually unfit as results of a biblical curse on the descendants of Noah’s son Ham. Some prominent Mormons — including Morris and Stewart Udall -- had publicly called for an end to the doctrine, the same kind of pressure that had earlier led to the end of approved polygamy. Mitt Romney, a former missionary -- and in an influential position as son of former Gov. George Romney -- said absolutely nothing.
You'd hardly know that, fact is, Romney had done absolutely nothing about fighting this racist barrier before his epiphany in his car.The Mormon Church considered blacks spiritually unfit as results of a biblical curse on the descendants of Noah’s son Ham. Some prominent Mormons — including Morris and Stewart Udall -- had publicly called for an end to the doctrine, the same kind of pressure that had earlier led to the end of approved polygamy. Mitt Romney, a former missionary -- and in an influential position as son of former Gov. George Romney -- said absolutely nothing.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Acquittal, mistrial end bomb plot case
http://Source
One of seven men charged with plotting to blow up the Sears Tower as part of an Islamic jihad was acquitted Thursday, and a mistrial was declared in the prosecution of the six others after the jury said it was hopelessly deadlocked.
The outcome was a significant defeat for the Bush administration, which had described the case as a major crackdown on homegrown terrorists.Officials had acknowledged that the defendants, known as the Liberty City Seven for the depressed section of Miami where they frequently gathered in a run-down warehouse, had never acquired weapons or equipment and had posed no immediate threat. But, the officials said, the case underscored a need for pre-emptive terrorism prosecutions.
In acquitting Lyglenson Lemorin, 32, a Haitian immigrant who was cast by the prosecution as a junior foot soldier in the group, the jurors were compelled by evidence that suggested he had tried "to distance himself" from the others, Jeffrey Agron, the jury foreman, said outside the courthouse. Lemorin had split with the group's leader, Narseal Batiste, 33, and moved to Atlanta months before the seven were arrested last year, according to The Associated Press.
As for the six defendants on whom the jury deadlocked, the U.S. attorney's office here said Thursday that it would retry them. The judge, Joan Lenard, ordered jury selection for the retrial to begin Jan. 7 and barred prosecution and defense lawyers from discussing Thursday's outcome with reporters.
The defendants -- five Americans and two Haitians -- worked in a small construction business owned by Batiste and were members of the Moorish Science Temple, a sect that blends Islam, Christianity and Judaism and does not recognize the authority of the U.S. government. They were charged with planning to join forces with Al Qaeda to blow up Sears Tower and several federal buildings.
Agron, the jury foreman, who described himself as an educator at a synagogue, said the case's complexity, with seven defendants each facing four conspiracy counts, had made for "tough" deliberations.
One of seven men charged with plotting to blow up the Sears Tower as part of an Islamic jihad was acquitted Thursday, and a mistrial was declared in the prosecution of the six others after the jury said it was hopelessly deadlocked.
The outcome was a significant defeat for the Bush administration, which had described the case as a major crackdown on homegrown terrorists.Officials had acknowledged that the defendants, known as the Liberty City Seven for the depressed section of Miami where they frequently gathered in a run-down warehouse, had never acquired weapons or equipment and had posed no immediate threat. But, the officials said, the case underscored a need for pre-emptive terrorism prosecutions.
In acquitting Lyglenson Lemorin, 32, a Haitian immigrant who was cast by the prosecution as a junior foot soldier in the group, the jurors were compelled by evidence that suggested he had tried "to distance himself" from the others, Jeffrey Agron, the jury foreman, said outside the courthouse. Lemorin had split with the group's leader, Narseal Batiste, 33, and moved to Atlanta months before the seven were arrested last year, according to The Associated Press.
As for the six defendants on whom the jury deadlocked, the U.S. attorney's office here said Thursday that it would retry them. The judge, Joan Lenard, ordered jury selection for the retrial to begin Jan. 7 and barred prosecution and defense lawyers from discussing Thursday's outcome with reporters.
The defendants -- five Americans and two Haitians -- worked in a small construction business owned by Batiste and were members of the Moorish Science Temple, a sect that blends Islam, Christianity and Judaism and does not recognize the authority of the U.S. government. They were charged with planning to join forces with Al Qaeda to blow up Sears Tower and several federal buildings.
Agron, the jury foreman, who described himself as an educator at a synagogue, said the case's complexity, with seven defendants each facing four conspiracy counts, had made for "tough" deliberations.
Bill Clinton Suggests Obama Not Ready -- Obama Responds
By Greg Mitchell Published:
December 14, 2007 11:55 PM ET updated 8:AM am, 2:00 PM
NEW YORK In a surprisingly frank interview with Charlie Rose on his PBS show late Friday night, former President Bill Clinton declared that his wife was not only far better prepared to be president than her chief rival Sen. Barack Obama -- "it's not close" -- but that voters who disagreed would be taking a "risk" if they picked the latter.
Repeatedly dismissive of Obama -- which could come back to haunt the Clinton campaign -- the former president at one point said that voters were, of course, free to pick someone with little experience, even "a gifted television commentator" who would have just "one year less" experience in national service than Obama. He had earlier pointed out that Obama had started to run for president just one year into his first term in the U.S. Senate.
Clinton also said, surprisingly, with a laugh, "It's a miracle she even has a chance" to win in Iowa, adding he was not just "low-balling it." He said John Edwards might well win -- which would certainly be preferable, from the Clintons' perspective, to an Obama win there. (See llink to video below.)
He praised Obama's intelligence and "sensational political skills" but repeatedly suggested that, unlike his wife and some of the other candidates, he might not be ready for the job. Asked directly about that, Clinton refused to state it bluntly, but did point out that when he was elected president in 1992 at about the same age as Obama, he was the "senior governor" in the U.S. and had worked for years on international business issues. Viewers could draw their own conclusions.
****
Obama responded on Saturday in Iowa by pointing out that Clinton himself had said in 1992 when he ran for president that a candidate can “have the right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience.” He also noted that he had been "involved in government for over a decade," mainly in Illinois, and had the right kind of experience to “bring people together.” He decried "slash and burn" politics and said Americans are "not interested in politics as a blood sport.”]
****
Link
December 14, 2007 11:55 PM ET updated 8:AM am, 2:00 PM
NEW YORK In a surprisingly frank interview with Charlie Rose on his PBS show late Friday night, former President Bill Clinton declared that his wife was not only far better prepared to be president than her chief rival Sen. Barack Obama -- "it's not close" -- but that voters who disagreed would be taking a "risk" if they picked the latter.
Repeatedly dismissive of Obama -- which could come back to haunt the Clinton campaign -- the former president at one point said that voters were, of course, free to pick someone with little experience, even "a gifted television commentator" who would have just "one year less" experience in national service than Obama. He had earlier pointed out that Obama had started to run for president just one year into his first term in the U.S. Senate.
Clinton also said, surprisingly, with a laugh, "It's a miracle she even has a chance" to win in Iowa, adding he was not just "low-balling it." He said John Edwards might well win -- which would certainly be preferable, from the Clintons' perspective, to an Obama win there. (See llink to video below.)
He praised Obama's intelligence and "sensational political skills" but repeatedly suggested that, unlike his wife and some of the other candidates, he might not be ready for the job. Asked directly about that, Clinton refused to state it bluntly, but did point out that when he was elected president in 1992 at about the same age as Obama, he was the "senior governor" in the U.S. and had worked for years on international business issues. Viewers could draw their own conclusions.
****
Obama responded on Saturday in Iowa by pointing out that Clinton himself had said in 1992 when he ran for president that a candidate can “have the right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience.” He also noted that he had been "involved in government for over a decade," mainly in Illinois, and had the right kind of experience to “bring people together.” He decried "slash and burn" politics and said Americans are "not interested in politics as a blood sport.”]
****
Link
New Jersey Abolishes the Death Penalty
This past week, the New Jersey legislature joined the civilized world and voted to abolish the death penalty in that state. With this move, New Jersey becomes the first state to abolish the death penalty since the Supreme Court reinstated it as a sentencing option back in 1976.
Governor Corzine plans to sign this legislation within the next few days.
Kudos to the New Jersey lawmakers for recognizing that revenge isn't justice, and that it makes no sense to kill someone who killed someone in order to show that killing is wrong.
Enough killing. Some pro-execution folks believe that New Jersey is being soft on crime. They're afraid that New Jersey will now allow killers to run free. This is not a valid argument. Instead of executing those found guilty of such serious crimes, New Jersey will now lock them up and throw away the key.
Life in prison without parole. Let them live in those horrible conditions and spend each day thinking about why they're there. That's a much harsher penalty than a quick death, in my opinion. And now New Jersey will also no longer run the real risk of executing the wrong person. And it gets even better:
In a tradition dating back to 1999, the Colosseum in Rome is dramatically lit up every time a death sentence is commuted somewhere in the world or a country abolishes capital punishment. And now Rome says it will be lighting up the Colosseum in honor of New Jersey's abolition of the death penalty.What a fitting tribute to the fact that New Jersey has finally seen the light!Today, 38 other states in this nation still retain a perceived right to kill people. Hopefully, one-by-one, they will join New Jersey and the rest of the civilized world and choose justice over revenge. Let's keep the Colosseum shining brightly.
Governor Corzine plans to sign this legislation within the next few days.
Kudos to the New Jersey lawmakers for recognizing that revenge isn't justice, and that it makes no sense to kill someone who killed someone in order to show that killing is wrong.
Enough killing. Some pro-execution folks believe that New Jersey is being soft on crime. They're afraid that New Jersey will now allow killers to run free. This is not a valid argument. Instead of executing those found guilty of such serious crimes, New Jersey will now lock them up and throw away the key.
Life in prison without parole. Let them live in those horrible conditions and spend each day thinking about why they're there. That's a much harsher penalty than a quick death, in my opinion. And now New Jersey will also no longer run the real risk of executing the wrong person. And it gets even better:
In a tradition dating back to 1999, the Colosseum in Rome is dramatically lit up every time a death sentence is commuted somewhere in the world or a country abolishes capital punishment. And now Rome says it will be lighting up the Colosseum in honor of New Jersey's abolition of the death penalty.What a fitting tribute to the fact that New Jersey has finally seen the light!Today, 38 other states in this nation still retain a perceived right to kill people. Hopefully, one-by-one, they will join New Jersey and the rest of the civilized world and choose justice over revenge. Let's keep the Colosseum shining brightly.
Stop paying for Bush's Wars
How much of your tax payment this year would you like to allocate for waterboarding in Iraq or an invasion of Iran? Around the world, people are puzzled as to why the U.S. public allows the Bush administration to wage illegal wars and usurp our power. Why do we tolerate it and continue to pay for it?
Over the past year, millions of U.S. citizens have voted, lobbied, marched, and taken direct action to end the war in Iraq. Courageous soldiers, such as members of Iraq Veterans Against the War, have taken the risk to speak out. Yet Congress continues to appropriate billions of dollars for the war.
How do we up the ante of resistance? It is time for taxpayers who oppose this war to join together in nonviolent civil disobedience and show Congress how to cut off the funds for this war and redirect resources to the pressing needs of people. Chris Hedges wrote in The Nation, “I will not pay my income tax if we go to war with Iran… I will go to court to challenge the legality of the war.”
Over the past year, millions of U.S. citizens have voted, lobbied, marched, and taken direct action to end the war in Iraq. Courageous soldiers, such as members of Iraq Veterans Against the War, have taken the risk to speak out. Yet Congress continues to appropriate billions of dollars for the war.
How do we up the ante of resistance? It is time for taxpayers who oppose this war to join together in nonviolent civil disobedience and show Congress how to cut off the funds for this war and redirect resources to the pressing needs of people. Chris Hedges wrote in The Nation, “I will not pay my income tax if we go to war with Iran… I will go to court to challenge the legality of the war.”
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Through the looking glass in Iraq
by Hazel Burke, Unknown News November 9, 2007
I happened to catch a few minutes of "Lou Dobbs Tonight", which featured as (repeat) guest, Lt. David Grainger. The big "news" is that just as public opposition to the Iraq War has reached a new low of 68%, the U.S. is starting to do remarkably well. Wow! Good news, eh?Not. The only metric provided was that U.S. troop deaths have fallen sharply in recent months. That is how our success is being measured. And according to the Lt. Grainger, if we were to withdraw our troops the situation would deteriorate."We must reinforce success," he asserted. So that means that because our troops are not dying as fast as they were, they have to stay in Iraq! Wow! That's not good -- especially because this debacle is costing $200 billion a year and the U.S. public national debt just hit $9 trillion, up from $5.6 trillion at the start of the Bush "presidency" (presiding over a series of failures is the actuality).
We have seen casualty reductions before. They resulted from a shift in tactics from offense to defense ("force protection missions".) In fact, there have been reports that some troops are writing fake action reports, just going out to a safe place and waiting for the end of their shift to roll around. Those troops are probably in the tiny majority, but undoubtedly U.S. commanders have been ordered to reduce troop deaths for political reasons.There have also been reports of a major escalation in the air war, something which receives little coverage in Der Homeland. So, a shift from ground offensives to aerial bombardment can easily account for a temporary reduction in ground-combat troop deaths.The (near) completion of ethnic cleansing may account for some reduction in violence. As may the reports of armloads of cash handed out to former "insurgents" in an attempt to buy loyalty from those who previously fought against and killed American soldiers.All in all, not even counting Abu Ghraib, there is not a bit of glory in this war, and there is no victory in sight. We cannot leave because we are succeeding they say, and our success is measured by how few American soldiers are dying each month.According to the pro-war crowd we must continue to spend $200 billion a year to support what can at best be deemed a long term stalemate. In fact, a long term U.S. presence in Iraq amounts to a defeat for America. That is the truth about guerrilla war. The invaders are bled dry and eventually they leave. The guerrillas have nowhere to go and are motivated for reasons other than money. Strategically too, a long term occupation of Iraq is a total disaster because it destabilizes the Middle East and encourages people to hate America and all that it stands for.
Right now what America stands for is threatening and invading countries with oil, the use of internationally banned torture techniques and secret prisons where people disappear permanently, and an inability to manage its economy and finances (America has earned a reputation for gigantic financial frauds, and for rarely prosecuting rich white executives.)In the end the Iraqis don't need to defeat our soldiers, they just need to wait for the oil sheiks and the Asian exporters to cut off our financing. When the U.S. is no longer deemed creditworthy (any minute now), our global military empire will disband and disappear.Even worse for BushCo, did you hear about the Nazi war criminal that is still being sought? Sixty years after
the end of WWII and the people of Israel are still rounding these guys up and trying them! That ought to give the leaders of any soon-to-be ex-superpowers something to think about!I have long advocated turning over the American leadership to the International Criminal Court for trial as part of the Middle East peace process. We don't have enough money to pay reparations, but we could put on a helluva show with these blowhards on TV in orange jumpsuits and manacles!
I happened to catch a few minutes of "Lou Dobbs Tonight", which featured as (repeat) guest, Lt. David Grainger. The big "news" is that just as public opposition to the Iraq War has reached a new low of 68%, the U.S. is starting to do remarkably well. Wow! Good news, eh?Not. The only metric provided was that U.S. troop deaths have fallen sharply in recent months. That is how our success is being measured. And according to the Lt. Grainger, if we were to withdraw our troops the situation would deteriorate."We must reinforce success," he asserted. So that means that because our troops are not dying as fast as they were, they have to stay in Iraq! Wow! That's not good -- especially because this debacle is costing $200 billion a year and the U.S. public national debt just hit $9 trillion, up from $5.6 trillion at the start of the Bush "presidency" (presiding over a series of failures is the actuality).
We have seen casualty reductions before. They resulted from a shift in tactics from offense to defense ("force protection missions".) In fact, there have been reports that some troops are writing fake action reports, just going out to a safe place and waiting for the end of their shift to roll around. Those troops are probably in the tiny majority, but undoubtedly U.S. commanders have been ordered to reduce troop deaths for political reasons.There have also been reports of a major escalation in the air war, something which receives little coverage in Der Homeland. So, a shift from ground offensives to aerial bombardment can easily account for a temporary reduction in ground-combat troop deaths.The (near) completion of ethnic cleansing may account for some reduction in violence. As may the reports of armloads of cash handed out to former "insurgents" in an attempt to buy loyalty from those who previously fought against and killed American soldiers.All in all, not even counting Abu Ghraib, there is not a bit of glory in this war, and there is no victory in sight. We cannot leave because we are succeeding they say, and our success is measured by how few American soldiers are dying each month.According to the pro-war crowd we must continue to spend $200 billion a year to support what can at best be deemed a long term stalemate. In fact, a long term U.S. presence in Iraq amounts to a defeat for America. That is the truth about guerrilla war. The invaders are bled dry and eventually they leave. The guerrillas have nowhere to go and are motivated for reasons other than money. Strategically too, a long term occupation of Iraq is a total disaster because it destabilizes the Middle East and encourages people to hate America and all that it stands for.
Right now what America stands for is threatening and invading countries with oil, the use of internationally banned torture techniques and secret prisons where people disappear permanently, and an inability to manage its economy and finances (America has earned a reputation for gigantic financial frauds, and for rarely prosecuting rich white executives.)In the end the Iraqis don't need to defeat our soldiers, they just need to wait for the oil sheiks and the Asian exporters to cut off our financing. When the U.S. is no longer deemed creditworthy (any minute now), our global military empire will disband and disappear.Even worse for BushCo, did you hear about the Nazi war criminal that is still being sought? Sixty years after
the end of WWII and the people of Israel are still rounding these guys up and trying them! That ought to give the leaders of any soon-to-be ex-superpowers something to think about!I have long advocated turning over the American leadership to the International Criminal Court for trial as part of the Middle East peace process. We don't have enough money to pay reparations, but we could put on a helluva show with these blowhards on TV in orange jumpsuits and manacles!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)