Mccs1977

Test

2010-06-17T23:39:00.001-04:00

Testing old systems...

Choice?

2008-02-15T13:23:00.001-05:00

Break

2006-12-07T19:05:00.000-05:00

Reyes Update

2006-12-07T15:55:00.000-05:00

PC commented on the last post that we should be very careful with our statements concerning our glorious Political Representatives. And that I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions with talk of Reyes being bought off...

Reviewing Rep. Reyes blog today, reveals - that apparently- he was just clueless. My bad. Visiting Reyes blog today, he says that after reading the ISG- he is completely changing his position:

This report confirms what most have known for the past several years - staying the course in Iraq is not a viable option. We need a new approach, and this report provides us some possible options that deserve serious consideration. Those options include: launching a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq, including engaging with Iran and Syria; transitioning U.S. combat forces out of from Iraq by 2008 while embedding remaining forces in Iraqi units as advisors

Oopsies, Silvestre. What a difference a day makes. Thank god the ISG cleared that up! No apologies or even a reference to his remarks the day prior, which leads me to believe that those of you who thought Reyes was being clever (ala Rangel and the draft) uh- were maybe looking too hard for some brainwave activity in his reasoning.

Forgive me for apparently being more informed on, uh - THE SITUATION in IRAQ - than a politician who has been "a senior member of both the Armed Services and Select Intelligence Committees. Congressman Reyes is a key member of Congress on Defense and military issues." Or so Wikipedia says.

How could he be so clueless and backtrack so quickly? He's not exactly one of our Democratic stand up guys- In 2005 he missed 94 votes in the House, the ninth most of any member. Wow even among a Do-Nothing Congress, he stands out.

He's currently in his 5th term and he pulled 68% of the vote in his last election. His voting record ain't bad- mainly straight Democratic party, although he did vote along with the GOP to give Oil companies incentives against the Democratic party line as well as for the Unborn Child Pain act that failed. And he was linked to a controversy concerning the failure of a $239 million Border patrol network and the contractor who employing his daughter. Other than that, he looks pretty good, except for his flip floppery on Iraq recently.

So, hey, it's a simple mistake. Two days ago he wanted to send 30,000 More troops. Today he doesn't. Just forget everything he was saying to NEWSWEEK. Or that's WHAT he's telling his Democratic constituency NOW. Too bad we probably won't see any MSNBC headlines about him changing his tune. The damage has been done. So rest easy - He wasn't paid off, or anything nefarious like that. He just needed Jim Baker to pop the bubble he was in.

Caught in a mosh

2006-12-06T09:18:00.000-05:00

This boils my damn blood! To hear this utter garbage from a neocon, WWIII-pining, Corporate Robber Baron Republican is one thing. But to hear it from the Democrat appointed by Pelosi who will soon head up the House Intelligence Committee is like taking a kick to the gut.

from MSNBC

In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”

What in the sixth layer of hell is going on? Who bought off Reyes? "Dismantle" the militias? What fucking planet is this moron on? 30,000 more troops? This is from a man whose has been opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning? He is from Texas, so I apologize, politicians are as crooked as they come around here.

“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.

When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: “I would say 20,000 to 30,000—for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military."

What part of IMPOSSIBLE does this brainiac not understand? Someone slap this fool with a little bit of the FACT that: Most Iraqi citizens ARE standing members of one militia faction or another. Every family is allowed an AK-47 in Iraq. A civil war rages and if you AREN'T gathering your neighbors and families together in armed bands, you are just going to become a victim. What next? Will he outlaw firearms and disarm the whole damn country? How many troops will that take? Another 140,000? And how about this other possibly useful tidbit of info : Most of the Military and Police that we are training also holds allegiance with one faction or another. Has he considered that?

This is OUR Strong Democratic leadership? This is stupidity on the level of Friedman, Kristol, and Hume! Does Reyes really have no clue to what is going on in Iraq? This is pure idiocy. And either Reyes is an idiot - Or he has ALREADY sold out to the other side.

And for those who are normally sane and thoughtful who are claiming this is a ploy to one-up McCain- No, it's not. So stop whitewashing stupidity and "ploys" as some kind of great political tactics. The nation elected Democrats in record numbers for one reason and one reason ONLY- They are tired of the bullshit. We want straight talking and intelligent discussion. No more cut-and-stay dialogue. Get us the hell out of Iraq NOW.

Caption it.

2006-12-06T00:01:00.000-05:00

What's Rummy about to say?

They have their commandments and I have mine...

2006-12-05T17:40:00.000-05:00

There are two great articles on Alternet today that discuss both the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the greater Israeli/Every other Arab conflict. Both offer a sense of hope for the future. If peace is ever to be achieved in the middle east, it will not be at the hands of a government. It will be when the people on all sides, who have endured and committed so much violence at the same time, can stop the cycle of revenge and retaliation. The first article discusses how the direct victims of the conflict are striving to do just that= to bury their hate and love their enemies. Half the world away, an American like me can claim to understand, but I can't, truly. It is easy for us to cry out "Stop this useless murder!" with a modicum of emotion and empathy. For those who have lost their husbands, wives, and children, it seems almost an impossible notion. For those victims- it is a tribute to their humanity that they can set aside vengeance and channel their emotions to serve the cause of peace in their countries. It is far easier to take up a weapon and join those who seek destruction as their only defense. But as these victims can tell you, it only means more martyrs, more victims, more destruction. The only victory is when the violence stops. Peace is the only solution. Peace is the only victory. Hopefully these brave souls, both jewish and arab, can make more of their countrymen understand this lesson without becoming victims to fully comprehend it. The Second Article is the story on a more personal level, from the perspective of a Jewish American journalist and his journeys into Lebanon.

EXCERPT:

In all my travels in the Middle East I have repeatedly received the same welcome response. It is one of two Koranic phrases I have memorized. Lakum dinakum wa ana diin. Roughly, they have their mitzvahs (commandments) , and I have mine. I don't pretend to understand the context or interpretations of this phrase, but my entire understanding of Islam -- of the Arab world -- starts here.

For Peace- All Understanding on both sides must begin somewhere.

Gates hearing

2006-12-05T15:41:00.000-05:00

So far everything that has come out of Gates mouth has been to parrot the president. [Leaving will be disasterous, the troops need to stay indefinitely, there is no civil war, it's all Iran's fault, etc] I have not heard anything that makes me think that he will be any different than Rummy. I say NO to Gates. Any thoughts? This can be kind of an open forum on the Gates hearing. *Update* Gates was unanimously approved. Any thoughts?

11-7 Changed Everything

2006-12-05T00:01:00.000-05:00

Week two of the Pre-November the 7th Thinking series, "the Zombies are starting to awake and attack the agenda the American people voted for," edition: Allahpundit [Hot Air] - "Bad things happen when you lose your majority." NewsBusters - "The BBC reports that John Bolton had to leave the UN due to a weakened Bush and Republican set backs in the November election . . . Anything to keep the meme going, Democrats up, Republicans down." John J. Miller [NRO] - "How about Rick Santorum for the UN job? Yeah, there'd probably be a confirmation fight. And he may want to take a breather after 16 years in elected office. But it's worth thinking over." John @ Powerline - "Liberal Democrats and media figures have tried to create a sense of panic about Iraq: the country is a disaster, the war has been lost, all we can do is find an 'exit strategy' and get out . . . I think what liberals really fear is that Bush's Iraq policy will yet prove successful. By stampeding the country into withdrawal, they can guarantee failure, and blame it on Bush." Texas Rainmaker - "Last night I went to Taco Bell, and if there’s any place in our country you can go to see the best argument against raising the minimum wage, it’s a fast food restaurant." Double Bonus: Ace of Spades - "Comedy Central To Lauch Animated Bush Parody Show . . . A kinda crappy bit of work that has little going for it except it has the all-important Anti-Bush Brand on it. The same thing that keeps marginal talents Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on the air." Mary Katharine Ham [Townhall] - "Chavez's other grinning dictator buddy would also undoubtedly be pumped about the win if he weren't so dead." -OMG, they killed Johnny, you bastards!

Strong on terror...how?

2006-12-04T23:36:00.000-05:00

Now, I knew the President is dumb as a bag of hammers, but I didn't know it's contagious. This sickens me on so many levels. First that I actually gave this administration and its' leader the benefit of the doubt allot. Second that it takes the liberal media to expose such stupidity. Let's have a quickie Q&A:

Q- What's the first rule of warfare? A- Know your enemy.

Unless this is what he's talking about when he says this is a new kind of war... Ugh. Fucking ugh is all I can muster now. U. G. fuckin' H Namaste to you all. B

Time's up, Varmint.

2006-12-04T13:52:00.000-05:00

I'm sorry, it's been hours, but I've only just now stopped slapping my knee, giggling and snorting... ...and Pam wept:

We're screwed . . . Anybody happy about this is an America hater. The tyranny of the minority strikes again.

-Oh, ROTFL, that's just got me going again!!!11!

Scapegoat

2006-12-03T01:39:00.000-05:00

So Robert Gates’ confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin this Tuesday. Here are some questions that I wish someone would ask him before they vote to confirm him anyway. 1. The Iraq Study Group’s report will be released soon to the president and the American people. Does the fact that you served on this group prior to your nomination for Defense Secretary have any bearing on your likelihood to take their recommendations? Will you be willing to give other options from other sources the same weight in your deliberation process over the best way to move forward? 2. Do you intend to continue the Administration’s apparent policy of forcing generals who disagree with you into retirement? Or, rather, do you intend to take all views presented by your advisors as worthy of consideration, acknowledging that they have 20 or 30 years of experience running the military on an operational level, rather than serving primarily in an administrative function for most of their career, as you have? 3. Rumsfeld stated in several media interviews before his resignation that the “center of gravity” in the Iraq war is actually here in America, resting in US public opinion and media. Do you concur with his assessment of the situation? Or might you instead feel that American public opinion is not a military-type force with the ability to change the Iraqi’s ability to continue their insurgency? In your opinion, what IS the “center of gravity” in Iraq and how do you intend to approach dealing with it? 4. I understand that, with regards to the Iran-Contra scandal, you were ultimately found to have been likely to have known what was going on, but there was nothing indictable about your actions, or lack thereof. Whatever your actual level of involvement in that disgraceful scandal of the Reagan administration, how do you feel the Iraqi people will view you because of the perception that you were involved on some level? In other words, do you think that the Iraqi politicians and public will have the same level of trust in your judgment and confidence in your intentions as they would of someone with no connection whatsoever to an era in which the US was providing weapons under the table to aid their enemy in a brutal war? How do you think this perception will impact your ability to convince the Iraqis that whatever new strategy you develop will actually make headway, rather than being the same “stay the course” policy of ineffectiveness we have seen thus far, or, worse, something they view as being against their interests and further disrupting their violent national picture? 5. You were tapped for this job with the express purpose of changing our Iraq policy in some substantial fashion because your predecessor was either unable or unwilling to do so. (In light of the memo released since I wrote this, I maintain that Rumsfeld was offering too little, too late. If he was just going to agree with Murtha’s ideas in the end, he sure could have made some effort to stand up for Murtha while his propagandists in the media were busy throwing eggs at the man in the metaphorical pillory.) However, the President’s spokespeople are still saying that while tactical changes may take place, the President/Commander in Chief intends to maintain the current over-arching strategy because he feels it is right. Should you determine that the strategy is actually untenable and must change, are you willing to advise the President of this view? Given the Rumsfeld memo of 6 Nov., would you fear for your job if the president didn’t care for your view? Would you expect him to take that advice seriously? If not, what is your purpose in this office, other than as a figurehead? Under some non-volatile situation, I’m sure he wouldn’t be any worse a Defense Secretary than anyone else Bush would pick. Maybe he won’t continue trying to privatize, capitalize, and corporatize the military, like Rummy was trying to do. Maybe he will discontinue the potentially disastrous policy of drawing the military down into some amorphous quick-strike special ops force with a reduced capability to fight a large normal army, even as China continues to build one of those traditional large armies. Or maybe he will continue those policies. I don’t know. While those things are important, those things aren’t why he was purportedly hired. He was hired to deal with Iraq in some different way than what Rumsfeld was doing. Given the advisement that is scheduled to be given to the executive branch over the rest of the month, it is probably unreasonable to expect him to give a direct answer on how he intends to change Iraq policy during the hearings this week. That is unfortunate. However, I think answers to these questions would give a decent overview of how he intends to handle the decisions surrounding implementing that policy and how he views his own ability to be effective in that effort. I seriously hope that something changes soon for the benefit of the American and Iraqi people. However, I will continue to be heavily skeptical of anything Bush touches. If Bush doesn’t have any intention of listening to anyone or changing anything if he doesn’t feel like it, then they may as well leave Rummy in the Pentagon because, in that situation, the Defense Secretary is serving as an effective shield for criticism directed at the president. They have a word for that.

Titanic Statement

2006-12-03T00:01:00.000-05:00

Rumsfeld's pre-quit memo urged Iraq shift Document, confirmed by Pentagon, offered no specific recommendations Reuters Updated: 8:21 p.m. ET Dec 2, 2006

WASHINGTON — U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the White House before he resigned last month the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq was not working and he proposed changes, including possible troop reductions, The New York Times reported Saturday. "In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough," Rumsfeld said in the classified memo, dated Nov. 6. The Times posted a copy of the memo along with an article about it on its Web site. The memo's authenticity was confirmed by NBC News and the Pentagon, which declined further comment.

-Fredo [not Frederick] sez, "Set a firm withdrawal date to leave. Declare that with Saddam gone and Iraq a sovereign nation, the Iraqi people can govern themselves. Tell Iran and Syria to stay out."

A good choice.

2006-12-02T00:01:00.000-05:00

Anti-war Rep. to head House intelligence panel

By Richard Cowan

Reuters Friday, December 1, 2006; 3:23 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Texas Rep. Silvestre Reyes, an Iraq war opponent, will become chairman of the House of Representatives intelligence committee when Democrats take control of Congress in January, Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi said on Friday.
In choosing Reyes, a former border patrol agent and Vietnam War veteran, Pelosi skipped over two more senior Democrats to head a panel that oversees the conduct of U.S. national security policy and counterterrorism efforts.

As I noted in the comments section over at Blanton's and Ashton's, I am pleasantly surprised to hear the Rep. Reyes received the House Intel Chair. I actually met him once at a ceremony commemorating the opening of a new Deployment Center on Fort Bliss. In case you missed my bitching about the heat while I was in El Paso this summer, it was no different on this occasion back in 02'. I was the guidon bearer and was up front out in the sun, while the dignitaries watched seated under tent (which the detail I was on had spent the morning setting up). The Congressman got up to speak and was rather brief, siting his concern for those of us out in the sun. It doesn't sound like much, but I've been to plenty other ceremonies where the guest speaker goes on and on until someone literally fall on their face, or backwards onto the soldiers standing behind them in formation. It's no little thing when a public official shows concern for a soldier, and then actually takes direct action.

Stripping away the illusions

2006-12-01T12:54:00.000-05:00

The following article is very good. It is probably the most insightful writing on the personal aspect of the relationship between soldiers and Iraqis that I have read to date. It was written by a Army Special forces Major. There are many reasons that some of us have believed since the beginning that this "war" in Iraq would be a failure on all levels. Major Edmond's writing reveals to me a window to a success that might have been -that we might, just might, have had a chance if we had taken a different tact as we began the mission in Iraq. From our President on down to private contractors in Iraq, we should show more respect for the Iraqis and their culture. It may not mean success at this late date, but it could mean the difference between a country that despises us for the next hundred years and a country that realizes that the goal of the American people in Iraq, even most of our pro-war countrymen- was to help them.

Soldiers Story The picture is of Lieutenant Colonel David Vacchi, US Army, Professor of Military Leadership at UMASS-Amherst. His story, also a good read, is here: To Iraq and Back

Discussion on Religion

2006-12-01T10:11:00.000-05:00

Inevitably a discussion on anything with the majority of Alabamians returns to religion. On the heels of our political discussions my co-worker said it was a-ok to support war and killing, using a biblical perspective. Same setup as before. A bunch of questions and a bunch of “Uhmmmms”. “Do you support abortion?” Hell no “Why not?” Because it is the taking of an innocent life! “Innocents are not killed in war?” Yes “Then how is it that you can be fine with killing whomever in another country, but abortion is unbelievably wrong?” Cuz it is. (Not satisfied with the Cuz I said so argument I pressed. After all, if I wouldn’t accept that as an answer from my parents why would I now?) At what point is the fetus to be considered alive? Directly to the point when is it “murder”? At conception. “At conception a fetus is no different than a pair of amoebas, parameciums (remember them?), or a tumor.” Yeah but a tumor isn’t going to be a person. “Granted, but at conception it is a grouping of cells, nothing more. As for myself I believe life starts when you take your first breath.” How can you say that? Look at the images of sonograms kids sucking their thumbs etc. “My perspective is Biblical in origin.”(Taken aback by this, he paused. He then asked for backup of my statements.) “In Genesis it was not until Adam was given the “breath of life” from his Adonai did he become “man”. After all, it’s Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve right?” He made mention, though he couldn’t exactly or indirectly quote, of a later verse in which God is professed to have “known” one of the prophets while still in his mother. I believe it was John, or an OT guy. I asked him to provide the same courtesy I had given him to back his argument up. He couldn’t so we moved on. He made claim that all Muslims are out to kill all Christians. That we are in a state of war, and should live as such. Weapons at the ready locked and loaded. “Have you ever heard of the Prayer of Saint Francis?” Nope “Well, it’s probably just a Catholic thing (saints).” So I recited it for him as I wished for quite awhile to be a Priest. Make me a channel of your peace… He said he’d heard it somewhere before. I then asked if he felt that Jesus was his brother in the service of god. “Yes” Am I your brother? “Yes” Are all men on the planet your brother, in a biblical sense? “Yes” I asked him to hand me his keys. He obliged. I thumbed through to find the inevitable “WWJD” keychain. I asked him what Jesus would do today. “If he were a citizen of the United States in 2006, what would he be doing?” I can’t answer that. “Ok, (allowing him to wiggle out of that one) would he be arming himself?” Probably not. “Would he be bombing abortion clinics or school buses?” No. “Given what you know about the man, would you say that he, being a peace loving guy who hung around with “whores”, would support our nation’s foreign policies?” Yes “How?” We support Israel. “Yes we do. But the Israelites were the ones that killed him.” Yeah, but he was Jesus so he forgave them. “And so, what would Jesus do in response to 9-11?” He probably would have forgiven them. “Is this keychain of yours “WWJD” something to live by?” Yes “A maxim of sorts?” Yup “So, you hold a keychain that asks “What would Jesus do?” You’ve agreed that he would most likely be “soft” on terrorism or at the very least not support our foreign policies, you claim to live by the man’s examples of peace and fraternity …and you support war?” Yup“You don’t see hypocrisy in that?” Nope I looked at his son who was still standing there waiting for his Dad to lay the smack down on this godless hippie freak which never happened. A light came into his eyes, and he breathed in so as to speak but held back as his eyes traveled to his Dad. His head ducked in silent obedience. He saw his father had just gotten his ass kicked again in an argument he felt to be his strong suit. We continued, and he related how the world was going to end soon, in his lifetime, and how great heaven’s going to be. I asked him to remove himself from that thought process for one second (Believe me God won’t mind) is that a healthy process to guide our foreign policies? Well if it’s true, then yes. “What if it’s not true?” Well, if you’ve read the bible in the New… “Testament in the books of the Apocalypse it says, blah ditty blah. Name me one thing that was prophesized in the New Testament or old that has come true.” Jesus was born as the Messiah. “Well, the majority of the world’s population disagrees with that perspective. So, given that this world is going to end in our lifetime, our foreign policies should reflect that thought, even though it may not end in our lifetime? That’s being a little ignorant to the possibilities no?” Maybe…. Then the owner yelled (not really) that we were extremely busy and we were not at Trinity College, my name isn’t Martin Luther and his wasn’t John Calvin… And so I made people food to eat, and he cussed under his breath. So for the rest of the night I sang the Prayer of Saint Francis to myself (it is a lovely poem) and asked myself what would Jesus do?

No Exit.

2006-12-01T05:46:00.000-05:00

Garcin: There's no more hope - but it's still "before." We haven't yet begun to suffer. [72]

Iraq Panel to Urge Pullout Of Combat Troops by '08

By Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks

Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, December 1, 2006; Page A01

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group plans to recommend withdrawing nearly all U.S. combat units from Iraq by early 2008 while leaving behind troops to train, advise and support the Iraqis, setting the first goal for a major drawdown of U.S. forces, sources familiar with the proposal said yesterday.

The Democratic Party is now prostrate with its prospects for 08'. It stands to gain significantly with the amount of House and Senate seats that are in play. Not to mention the first open seat since 1928 for President. Despite a mandate from the voters, they will play it safe, not wanting to alienate their new found Independent constituency, thus weakening their chances for 08'. Signs the road is getting bumpy (and its not even January yet): Medicare Part D Enacting the 911 Commission Recommendations -They still have a chance if they are aggressive and revealing with hearings in the House and Senate. But don't expect any promises, implied or otherwise, to be fulfilled by the Democratic Party regarding Iraq.

20 years

2006-11-30T12:13:00.000-05:00

No retrospectives?

Each picture tells a story, click on them.

Talking at work

2006-11-29T20:41:00.000-05:00

It goes without saying that I am slightly out of place where I live. I live in perhaps the reddest of the red states, Alabama. Southern Alabama to be precise. In general the people are nice, for example they will stop if you are having car troubles. I don't even mind the bald faced racism that occurs on both ends of the bigoted spectrum. So long as it's not said in front of me where I can hear it. I was raised that when I see something is wrong I set about to fix it. Whatever it is and whoever is wronged...wrong is wrong and right is right. Simple enough no? So, at my work there is a part time employee that likes to poke fun at me because I am from Boston. No worries, I'm used to it. I retort in monosyllabic grunts, and we both get a kick out of it. Recently he has taken to arguing with me. Now, on the internet everyone is a frickin genius because they have the time to research, and edit. When one is face to face the arguing is slightly more complex. I tend to excel at face to face confrontation. So, we went at it. He made some claims that were just straight up bullshit, and I hammered him for it. The quotes are actually paraphrases because I can't remember word for word a week later. Sorry ahead of time. CLAIM NUMBER ONE- The reason America is so far in the hole is because of liberal's spending habits. I actually had him spell it out literally, because it could be taken that liberal spending habits used as an adjective. I asked him if he has ever had to use food stamps, WIC, or unemployment insurance. He replied "yes" to all three. I asked if it was helpful and was a good thing that we were lucky enough to have these things. He again replied "yes". I asked if he was married. "Yes" Was your wife pregnant and working at the same time? "Yes" Did she get time off to give birth without fear of losing her job? "Yes" (By now his eyes were wandering as I KNOW he felt a set-up coming, and he isn't as dumb as one would figure.) I then walked him back to the bulletin board and asked him to read the dates of the acts that required all of those posters in regards to sexual harassment, equal opportunity, and family medical leave. ALL of these things were passed during Democratic Presidential Administrations. Inclusion is the key, not exclusion. I then asked him if the GI Bill was a waste of money. Of course he said "No". Chalk another up for them thar liberals. I asked him if his mom likes the idea of getting a retirement check every month. He said "yes". Ok, there's another. Are you guys getting my drift? Here is what I see from my perspective. When a Republican gets into the White House a new "war" is found to fight and is allocated YOUR tax monies. While NavySwan can whip my ass in economics (among other things) I think we're on an even keel with common sense. Whenever a Democrat is in the White House people that were formerly excluded rights are INCLUDED in the American Dream. That is to be what you want to be, be who you want to be, make as much money or as little as you wish. We are a land of choices. That is what Freedom boils down to. Choices. In Absolutist France, you had choices alright, but you'd never want to surrender your wife to the whims of the local lord would you? SECOND QUOTE: LIBERALS ARE PANSY-ASSES THAT WANT TO HUG TREES AND TAKE MY GUNS. No shit, he claimed that and I asked him if he was serious. I then asked him what he uses his guns for. He replied "Hunting". I then asked him the largest thing that he's ever shot and killed. He replied "twelve point buck." I then asked him if he shot it with an automatic rifle. He said no a 30-30. or a 30.06 I forget. As to the pansy assed comment I asked him if he was ever in the military. He replied "No". I then asked him what he thought about the Marines. He replied " bunch of hard assed individuals." I then rolled up my sleeve to reveal the Eagle, Golbe, and Anchor tattoo on my shoulder. I smiled and told him to get his lazy ass back to work. (hehe) We got into religion later, and I'll save that for another post. The bottom line of this whole shebang is that one must beware of the things that one does not know. He argued with me in front of his oldest son. He made assumptions of me based on traps that I purposefully lay. IE my hair is long, I am scruffy, and I like to sing Lennon tunes to myself. I do this on purpose so that when a hillbilly like my co-worker make those faulty assumptions I complete the smackdown. It just so happened that his son was there to witness what a jackass you can be when you assume things about people. Some among us assume that all Muslims are out to get us. Kill our wives and place them in their harems, or are aiming to kill our friends and get 72 virgins. This is an assumption. The truth is much more different. Those assholes that kill innocents are no different that the assholes running "Jesus Camp", just in a different section of the world. There is an assumption among us that we are safe from having our rights taken from us because we're AMERICANS!!!! We don't take shit from nobody....unless we don't know it's happening, or are too tired from working two jobs, or are just plain old fashioned lazy. Coming soon... A religious debate with an Alabamian. Namaste

War on speech?

2006-11-29T16:28:00.000-05:00

Newt Gingrich thinks we should have a "different set of rules" in regards to freedom of speech during the neverending war on everything. However, if you read between the lines, it is obvious who those new rules are for. He says these different rules "may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message." He specifically refers to internet use. Obviously, the grassroots internet movement on the left has the righties scared. If you read further in the article, you will notice that he has no problem with free speech when it comes to corporations, lobbyists, and Christians.

Gingrich sharply criticized campaign finance laws he charged were reducing free speech and doing little to fight attack advertising. He also said court rulings over separation of church and state have hurt citizens' ability to express themselves and their faith.

If you go back and analyze the rhetoric of the right over the past few months, you get this: Liberals and Democrats are terrorist lovers, people who criticize Bush and his policies are helping the enemies, and free speech needs to be regulated to keep the "terrorists" from using it to further their agenda. If you think that this is just the crazy ranting of a person on the extreme fringe and could never materialize, think back a few years to the rhetoric being used to circumvent the court system:

The Defense Department, in its March 2005 National Defense Strategy for the United States of America, cautioned against foes who use a “strategy of the weak” against the United States, such as “using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism.” The Defense Department’s logic appeared simple: We dominate the world militarily. Anyone who decides to confront us in some other way is not playing fair. Ergo, they are violating the rules. Two years before that, the Council on Foreign Relations coined the phrase “lawfare” to describe this logic. “Lawfare,” opined CFR, is the “strategy of using or misusing law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve military objectives.” Under this logic, individuals whose privacy has been invaded, or who have been detained despite being innocent, and then seek redress in the courts are committing acts of “lawfare.”

So, could the concept of free speech be bastardized and redefined as a "tool" the terrorists could use against us, and therefore it must be stifled? I think the bastardization has already occured and the effort to supress is kicking into high gear. Look at the military groups whose job it is to "monitor" internet sites. Also, Chertoff referred to the internet as a "recruiting ground" for terrorists several months ago. There is already a strategic assault on free speech, especially in regards to the internet. My question is this: when is the redefining of free speech going to be legislated and do for our freedom of speech what the Military Commissions Act did for our court system?

How long before the jaws snap shut?

2006-11-29T12:08:00.000-05:00

Two Major news items today: Sadrists Boycott Iraq Government over Bush simply Meeting with Al-Maliki: BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki arrived in Jordan for meetings Wednesday and Thursday with President Bush aimed at halting escalating sectarian violence and paving the way for a reduction of U.S. troops. Lawmakers and Cabinet ministers loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr promptly suspended participation in parliament and the government to protest the meeting. The political bloc is a mainstay of support for al-Maliki. (boldfacing mine) A statement issued by the 30 lawmakers and six Cabinet ministers said their boycott was necessary because the meeting constituted a "provocation to the feelings of the Iraqi people and a violation of their constitutional rights." The statement did not explain that claim. "This visit hijacked the will of the people during days when the sons of Iraq write their destiny with blood and not ink," said the statement, which referred to Bush as "cursed," the "world's biggest evil" and a "criminal." Link And Americans are close to pulling out of Anbar province... There are now 30,000 U.S. troops in al-Anbar, mainly Marines, braving some of the fiercest fighting in Iraq. At least 1,055 Americans have been killed in this region, making al-Anbar the deadliest province for American troops. The region is a Sunni stronghold and the main base of operations for al Qaeda in Iraq and has been a place of increasing frustration to U.S. commanders. In a recent intelligence assessment, senior Marine Intelligence Officer in al-Anbar, Col. Peter Devlin, concluded that without a massive infusement of more troops, the battle in al-Anbar is unwinnable. Link The Shia is feeling its oats. Hardly a whisper has been heard from Al-Sistani as the radical elements of the Iraqi Shia are embroiled in the civil war. Al-Sadr makes several big moves recently- another of which was seizing a state run news television station, to issue a call to arms. Forcing the Americans out of Anbar province would be a major victory for the Sunni and Al Quaeda elements. The clock is ticking. Both sides of Iraqis apparently have STOOD UP. I don't imagine this is what the neocons were picturing, but then, NOTHING they envisioned quite worked out the way they had "planned". Both sides are calling for American occupation to end so they can get to the proper business of fighting their civil war. The so-called Democracy that America instituted was a joke. Elected Iraqi officials refusing to take part in the government at all if their Prime Minister merely speaks to President Bush and militia infiltration of virtually every single police and army unit we have trained is our Seventh sign... It's time to get our troops out of Iraq. The Iraqi people have "spoken". They don't want us in the way of their power struggle. I personally don't see any way out of this at all. It won't be long until the attacks on U.S. forces become concentrated tenfold. Will our leaders remain sitting on their hands until the two sides of this beartrap clang shut on our forces there?

UPDATE : The Al-Maliki-Bush meeting was postponed today.

Link

So did the Sadrists successfully cow Al-Maliki from meeting Bush today? Or was Al-Maliki miffed at the White House comments denigrating Al-Maliki's leadership? Perhaps Bush has too many people to schmooze there than to talk with Al-Maliki today.

There has also been some grumbling about why Bush was meeting Al-Maliki in Jordan and not Iraq. Come on, now Bush's life can't be in harm's way! There's no way he can venture into Iraq NOW. Also, I initially thought that Bush wanted some of his Arab friends to apply a little additional pressure on Al-Maliki (as if he has any Power at all in the mess that Iraq has become!) But then, I saw some of his Saudi friends were rebuffing Bush as well :

Saudis moving in on Iraq

And if that isn't enough weird news, this just in:

Pakistan just asked NATO to surrender to the Taliban in Afghanistan

Pre-Nov. 7th Thinking

2006-11-29T00:01:00.000-05:00

Herr Blogenfreude has his "Weekend Wingnut Roundup," I think I'll put my own spin on the concept with "Pre-Nov. 7th Thinking." Every week on Tuesday, to commemorate the victory, I'll do a rundown of what some of my favorite nutter's said in total denial of November the 7th, 2006. Ace of Spades - "New York Times Gives Go-Ahead For Reporters To Call Iraq 'Civil War,' As They Deem Appropriate . . . And with their influence greatly diminished, they have to resort to more transparent stunts and shrilly partisan "announcements" to push their agenda." Confederate Yankee - As I've mentioned previously, a state of war exists between the United States and the governments of Iran and Syria, and that the question before us now is whether or not we chose to acknowledge this state of war that our adversaries have instigated... Dennis Prager [Townhall] - "Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran. He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization." Michelle Malkin - "A federal judge did what? U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins seems to have just shredded the president's authority to designate terrorist groups . . . Huh?" Powerline - "President Bush said today that he 'will not pull troops off the battlefield [in Iraq] before the mission is complete. Speaking in Latvia where he'll attend a NATO meeting, Bush added that 'we can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren.' These are reassuring words to those of us concerned about the mounting pressure on the administration to accept a defeat..." -January is going to be such a cold, dark, and long month for these folks... Bonus for Crooks and Liars visitors.

Where is RFK when you need him?

2006-11-28T10:36:00.000-05:00

I read this speech by RFK about Vietnam, and I was struck by the fact that almost every single detail mirrors the situation in Iraq. Here are some excerpts that strike familiar chords with recent events.

EXCERPTS: (in black)

For this is a year of choice -- a year when we choose not simply who will lead us, but where we wish to be led; the country we want for ourselves -- and the kind we want for our children. If in this year of choice we fashion new politics out of old illusions, we insure for ourselves nothing but crisis for the future -- and we bequeath to our children the bitter harvest of those crises.

For with all we have done, with all our immense power and richness, our problems seem to grow not less, but greater. We are in a time of unprecedented turbulence, of danger and questioning. It is at its root a question of the national soul. The president calls it "restlessness;" while cabinet officers and commentators tell us that America is deep in a malaise of the spirit -- discouraging initiative, paralyzing will and action, dividing Americans from one another by their age, their views, and the color of their skins.

This statement is no less true today than it was 4o years ago. Add to that division CLASS, amplified by the ever-more invasive corporate control exerted over our politicians and our people as a whole. .

Today I would speak to you of the third of those great crises: of the war in Vietnam. I come here, to this serious forum in the heart of the nation to discuss with you why I regard our policy there as bankrupt: not on the basis of emotion, but fact; not, I hope, in clichés -- but with a clear and discriminating sense of where the national interest really lies.

I do not want -- as I believe most Americans do not want -- to sell out American interests, to simply withdraw, to raise the white flag of surrender. That would be unacceptable to us as a country and as a people. But I am concerned -- as I believe most Americans are concerned -- that the course we are following at the present time is deeply wrong. I am concerned -- as I believe most Americans are concerned -- that we are acting as if no other nations existed, against the judgment and desires of neutrals and our historic allies alike. I am concerned -- as I believe most Americans are concerned -- that our present course will not bring victory; will not bring peace; will not stop the bloodshed; and will not advance the interests of the United States or the cause of peace in the world.

I am concerned that, at the end of it all, there will only be more Americans killed; more of our treasure spilled out; and because of the bitterness and hatred on every side of this war, more hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese slaughtered; so that they may say, as Tacitus said of Rome: "They made a desert, and called it peace."

And I do not think that is what the American spirit is really all about.

(...) I was involved in many of the early decisions on Vietnam, decisions which helped set us on our present path. It may be that the effort was doomed from the start; that it was never really possible to bring all the people of South Vietnam under the rule of the successive governments we supported -- governments, one after another, riddled with corruption, inefficiency, and greed; governments which did not and could not successfully capture and energize the national feeling of their people. If that is the case, as it well may be, then I am willing to bear my share of the responsibility, before history and before my fellow-citizens. But past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation. Tragedy is a tool for the living to gain wisdom, not a guide by which to live. Now as ever, we do ourselves best justice when we measure ourselves against ancient tests, as in the Antigone of Sophocles: "All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only sin is pride."

Robert F. Kennedy was the first politician who had supported the Vietnam war to admit his error and accept responsibility. Far from being considered a pariah for it, he is remembered as being great for it. Hopefully the current Congress can comprehend this fact and learn from it.

The reversals of the last several months have led our military to ask for 206,000 more troops. Recently, it was announced that some of them -- a "moderate" increase, it was said -- would soon be sent. But isn't this exactly what we have always done in the past? If we examine the history of the conflict, we find the dismal story repeated time after time. Every time -- at every crisis -- we have denied that anything was wrong; sent more troops; and issued more confident communiques. Every time, we have been assured that this one last step would bring victory. And every time, the predictions and promises have failed and been forgotten, and the demand has been made again for just one more step up the ladder.

But all the escalations, all the last steps, have brought us no closer to success than we were before.

Sound familiar? Does any of this?

And once again the President tells us, as we have been told for twenty years, that "we are going to win;" "victory" is coming. But what are the true facts? What is our present situation?

(...) The vice president tells us that the pacification program has "stopped". In the language of other high officials, it is a "considerable setback," with "loss of momentum," "some withdrawal from the countryside," "a significant psychological setback both on the part of pacification people themselves and the local population."

(...) Let us clearly understand the full implications of that fact. The point of our pacification operations was always described as "winning the hearts and minds" of the people. We recognized that giving the countryside military security against the Viet Cong would be futile -- indeed that it would be impossible -- unless the people of the countryside themselves came to identify their interests with ours, and to assist not the Viet Cong, but the Saigon government. For this we recognized that their minds would have to be changed -- that their natural inclination would be to support the Viet Cong, or at best remain passive, rather than sacrifice for foreign white men, or the remote Saigon government.

(...) If, in the years those villages and hamlets were controlled by Saigon, the government had brought honesty, social reform, land -- if that had happened, if the many promises of a new and better life for the people had been fulfilled -- then, in the process of reconquest, we might appear as liberators: just as we did in Europe, despite the devastation of war, in 1944-45. But the promises of reform were not kept. Corruption and abuse of administrative power have continued to this day. Land reform has never been more than an empty promise. Viewing the performance of the Saigon government over the last three years, there is no reason for the South Vietnamese peasant to fight for the extension of its authority or to view the further devastation that effort will bring as anything but a calamity.

(...) He tells us that we are "creating more Viet Cong than we are destroying" -- and "increasing numbers of Vietnamese are becoming benevolently neutral toward the Viet Cong."

(...) American officials continue to talk about a government newly energized, moving with "great competence," taking hold "remarkably well," doing "a very, very good piece of work of recovery." I was in the executive branch of the government from 1961 to 1964. In all those years, we heard the same glowing promises about the South Vietnamese government: corruption would soon be eliminated, land reform would come, programs were being infused with new energy. But those were not the facts then, and they are not the facts today.

It's not merely a few similarities, it's the same story over and over.

(...) Meanwhile, the government's enormous corruption continues, debilitating South Vietnam and crippling our effort to help its people. Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives have officially documented the existence, extent, and results of this corruption: American AID money stolen, food diverted from refugees, government posts bought and sold while essential tasks remain undone. A subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Government Operations has reported that the Vietnamese Collector of Customs had engaged in smuggling gold and opium -- and that he was protected by figures even higher in the government.

(...)Third, it is becoming more evident with every passing day that the victories we achieve will only come at the cost of destruction for the nation we once hoped to help. Even before this winter, Vietnam and its people were disintegrating under the blows of war. Now hardly a city in Vietnam has been spared from the new ravages of the past two months. Saigon officials say that nearly three quarters of a million refugees have been created, to add to the existing refugee population of two million or more. No one really knows the number of civilian casualties.

(...)There is not enough food, not enough shelter, not enough medical care. There is only death and misery and destruction.

An American commander said of the town of Ben Tre, "it became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it." It is difficult to quarrel with the decision of American commanders to use air power and artillery to save the lives of their men; if American troops are to fight for Vietnamese cities, they deserve protection.

(...) If it becomes "necessary" to destroy all of South Vietnam in order to "save it", will we do that too? And if we care so little about South Vietnam that we are willing to see the land destroyed and its people dead, then why are we there in the first place?

(...) It is also said that we are protecting Thailand -- or perhaps Hawaii -- from the legions of the Communists. Are we really protecting the rest of Southeast Asia by this spreading conflict? And in any case, is the destruction of South Vietnam and its people a permissible means of defense?

(...) What we must ask ourselves is whether we have a right to bring so much destruction to another land, without clear and convincing evidence that this is what its people want. But that is precisely the evidence that we do not have. What they want is peace, not dominated by any outside force.

(...)The fourth fact that is now more clear than ever is that the war in Vietnam, far from being the last critical test for the United States is in fact weakening our position in Asia and around the world, and eroding the structure of international cooperation which has directly supported our security for the past three decades. In purely military terms, the war has already stripped us of the graduated-response capability that we have labored so hard to build for the last seven years. Surely the North Koreans were emboldened to seize the Pueblo because they knew that the United States simply cannot afford to fight another Asian war while we are so tied down in Vietnam.

North Korean Nukes, anyone?

(...) Meanwhile our oldest and strongest allies pull back to their own shores, leaving us alone to police all of Asia; while Mao Tse-Tung and his Chinese comrades sit patiently by, fighting us to the last Vietnamese: watching us weaken a nation which might have provided a stout barrier against Chinese expansion southward; hoping that we will further tie ourselves down in protracted war in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand; confident, as it is reported from Hong Kong, that the war in Vietnam "will increasingly bog down the United States, sapping its resources, discrediting its power pretensions, alienating its allies, fraying its ties with the Soviet Union, and aggravating dissensions among Americans at home." As one American observer puts it, truly, "We seem to be playing the script the way Mao wrote it."

Or Osama Bin Ladin. This final bit reverbates the most with me. Robert F. Kennedy was right about Vietnam, and I believe he would have the same conclusions about Iraq:

All this bears directly and heavily on the question of whether more troops should now be sent to Vietnam -- and if more are sent, what their mission will be. We are entitled to ask -- we are required to ask -- how many more men, how many more lives, how much more destruction will be asked, to provide the military victory that is always just around the corner, to pour into this bottomless pit of our dreams? But this question the Administration does not and cannot answer. It has no answer -- none but the ever-expanding use of military force and the lives of our brave soldiers, in a conflict where military force has failed to solve anything in the past.

(...) For it is long past time to ask: what is this war doing to us? Of course it is costing us money -- fully one-forth of our federal budget -- but that is the smallest price we pay. The cost is in our young men, the tens of thousands of their lives cut off forever. The cost is in our world position -- in neutrals and allies alike, every day more baffled by and estranged from a policy they cannot understand. Higher yet is the price we pay in our own innermost lives, and in the spirit of our country.

(...) This is no radical program of surrender. This is no sell-out of American interests. This is a modest and reasonable program, designed to advance the interests of this country and save something from the wreckage for the people of Vietnam.

(...) There is a contest on, not for the rule of America, but for the heart of America. In these next eight months, we are going to decide what this country will stand for -- and what kind of men we are. So I ask for your help, in the cities and homes of this state, into the towns and farms: contributing your concern and action, warning of the danger of what we are doing -- and the promise of what we can do. I ask you, as tens of thousands of young men and women are doing all over this land, to organize yourselves, and then to go forth and work for new policies -- work to change our direction -- and thus restore our place at the point of moral leadership, in our country, in our own hearts, and all around the world.

Robert F. Kennedy, March 18, 1968, Landon Lecture at Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas

Now which Democrat has the heart and the guts to stand up and give that speech today about Iraq? It's a speech that every politician who cares about this country should be giving. Every day that speeches like this ARE NOT Given - is another day of death and dishonor for America.

Another good link about RFK

It's coming around again.

2006-11-28T00:01:00.000-05:00

Army Unit to Serve Third Tour in Iraq Nov 18, 6:16 AM (ET) By ROBERT BURNS

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which helped lead the charge to Baghdad at the outset of the war, will return next year and become the first Army division to serve three tours in Iraq. More than 3 1/2 years into the war, the Army and Marine Corps are straining to keep a steady flow of combat and support forces to Iraq while giving the troops sufficient time between deployments for rest and retraining. Both services are far short of their goal of providing two years between deployments; the 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry, for example, will have spent barely more than 12 months at home when it returns next year. The same is true for the division's 1st Brigade, which officials have said is scheduled to deploy again in January. The 3rd Infantry, based at Fort Stewart, Ga., is among several units - totaling 57,000 troops - identified by the Pentagon on Friday for deployment in a fresh rotation of forces starting in January. The announcement does not presume any change in troop levels, nor is any major change expected for at least several months.

(H/T) ilona @ ePluribus Media Update:

Allahpundit helps Rangels arguement for a Draft.

Allahpundit suggests, "Let the morality of every war be judged by the number of patriots willing to volunteer for it. 'Bad' wars will attract few enlistees and end quickly in defeat as we run out of troops; 'good' wars, just the opposite." With the Army missing its recruitment target by the widest margin since 1979, in 2005, I think Allahpundit may just get his wish.

Holiday Snark

2006-11-27T21:19:00.000-05:00

-I don't know, something tells me it's a fake. Why would Matt Drudge, Bob Owens, and Glenn Reynolds be dressed in burkas anyways... With a Satan Wreath no less!!!11! Update: It's a fake. I unearthed this, which proves it.

Group "W"

2006-11-27T00:01:00.000-05:00

So I’m sitting in the front room smoking a cigarette after Thanksgiving dinner at my Wife’s aunt’s house…and what should come on the radio but Arlo Guthrie's “Alice's Restaurant.” Congressman Rangel’s recent proposed bill to reinstate the draft immediately came to mind. Last week’s news, I know.

Seemed for a whole 48 hours there that where ever I turned, everyone was chipping in their 2¢. Some called it a return to slavery*. TRex served up some delicious snark. Others simply said, no way*. I think everyone--including Rep. Rangel--is missing the mark, somewhat. First of all, I’d like to see someone tell Alvin York or Freddie Stowers they were fucking slaves. Second, I’d like to know what happened to, “ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country.”

Some of the Colored men of the 369th (15th NY) who won the Croix de Guerre for gallantry in action l-r Front row Pvt. Ed Williams, Herbert Taylor, Pvt. Leon Fraitor, Pvt. Ralph Hawkins, Back row Sgt. H.D. Prinas, Sgt. Dan Storms, Pvt. Joe Williams, Pvt. Alfred Hanley, and Cpl. T. W. Taylor.

I definitely have seen more posts in the last week regarding the draft (never mind O.J.), than marking 43 years since Jack Kennedy was struck down by the military industrial complex. Yes, I know, awfully tinfoil hat of me. Yet, that’s my opinion. If Bill O’Reilly is entitled to his, I’m sure as hell entitled to mine. Just about the only difference is he gets paid, but I digress.

The point is it is an honor to serve in the military. That's a fact, not an opinion. Enlisted. Commissioned. Draftee. ~~Bonus Baby~~. Active Duty or National Guard. It is an honor, if not a duty. To serve your Country, to ask not what your country can do for you...

---

...Now through the Looking Glass:

Seems like in the aftermath of the mid-term election this whole month has been a reflection on where we were last year compared to now. See here, here, and here.

I received and e-mail this weekend announcing Patrick Resta's stepping down from the Board of the IVAW. I met Pat once at a demonstration in Washington. Seemed a decent fellow, here's what he had to say upon stepping down:

After almost two years I have grown tired of having the same discussions about what needs to happen and why. This war will only end when service members and their families make it. That will only happen when they get involved in the discussion. The need to reach your average service member and get them involved should be the obvious #1 mission to everyone. But, I’m left with the distinct impression that it isn’t and I believe that others sense it as well.

When I was working as the Northeast & New England Regional Coordinator I traveled pretty much every weekend throughout PA, NJ, CT, RI, and MA. I would call inactive members in the geographical area that I was in and see if they wanted to meet up after the event. Only one of them would meet with me and he won’t speak publicly on our behalf because he’s uncomfortable being linked to us. Something’s very wrong when we have that happening on such a large basis and it needs to be fixed.

By allowing people to bring their personal identity politics into IVAW we have weakened our message, alienated new/potential members, and allowed the enemy to label us too easily. We all have our own politics and causes but I had hoped that people would check them at the door for the good of the organization. Allowing people to misrepresent themselves and their experiences in our name is tantamount to handing the enemy a drum of SAW ammunition in a firefight. Instead of being rebuked and dismissed for the damage that they’ve done to IVAW and all of its members these individuals are coddled. Those that want the war to continue are saving all of these things up and when IVAW is viewed as a real threat to the war these things will all be made public.

This sums up what I've been thinking, in part, since I stopped going to protests earlier this year. The first name that comes to mind is Cindy Sheehan. The most important thing Pat says here is, "This war will only end when service members and their families make it." I wouldn't have believed that awhile ago. After watching Sir, No Sir! I am of a changed mind, however.

So here we are, paradoxes and all. I believe their should be a draft. I believe America would be a better Nation because of it. I think Liberals/Leftists/Progressives have removed themselves from too many areas and institutions. In this void the Right-wing has run a muck. In the discussion of "Go Big, Go Long, Go Home," almost everyone one hears the same echoes of the Administration coming from the heads of the Active Duty component of the military. I don't believe this would be the case if you had a wider more representational feel to the military that a draft would affect. The problem is devising a system where that actually happens -Two last things to note: Who really ended the draft? ...and the only objective opposition argument I've found so far.

Home Town News

2006-11-26T10:10:00.000-05:00

Impossible dream

"A town and a team share in the glory as Auburn wins its first state football crown."

New

2006-11-25T12:36:00.000-05:00

The Weekend is when I put Pandora through it's paces...and these guys are what I found. The wife and I got out to see a live band a while back, turns out they were from Texas like The Lovely Sparrows--although they were (I wish I could remember their name, damn you alcohol) completely different from a sonic stand point. I've been waiting around for quite some time for some kind of music scene to arise in the grand tradition of Athens/St. Paul/Seattle. As much as I was entertained by The Dandy Warhol's/The White Stripes /The Hives etc, etc... I've been looking to see something less commercially calculating (and, for the love of god, something just plain new...). I remember being a small child standing in front of the T.V. watching Stevie Ray Vaughn with my mouth hanging open in disbelief. I hope we can see more coming out of Austin.

I'm Thankful

2006-11-23T07:46:00.000-05:00

For the Memories July 1955 - Nov 2002

Give me Shelter

2006-11-22T11:26:00.000-05:00

JFK ~-~-~

See Also: The Sun Was Eclipsed By The Moon (Last Years post) ...and to top it off, take a listen:

Drawing Parallels Between Ancient Rome and the U.S. Today

Morning Edition, November 22, 2006 · In the second part of our series examining our perceptions of history, novelist Robert Harris speaks with Steve Inskeep about how the history of Rome is reflected in our modern-day world. Harris sees parallels between the time of Rome's transition from republican to imperial rule and the challenges the U.S. faces now.

La tentation de St. Andy

2006-11-21T20:21:00.000-05:00

Can I have an Andy Rooney moment here?! You know what I hate? Blogging. Like that last post I did. Total shit. I didn't say anything. I'm not going to do that anymore. 'Till the next time I do it.

Let's get it on...

2006-11-21T09:30:00.000-05:00

November 19, 2006 Calif. Couple Calls for Orgasm for Peace By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 9:08 p.m. ET

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Two peace activists have planned a massive anti-war demonstration for the first day of winter. But they don't want you marching in the streets. They'd much rather you just stay home. The Global Orgasm for Peace was conceived by Donna Sheehan, 76, and Paul Reffell, 55, whose immodest goal is for everyone in the world to have an orgasm Dec. 22 while focusing on world peace. ''The orgasm gives out an incredible feeling of peace during it and after it,'' Reffell said Sunday. ''Your mind is like a blank. It's like a meditative state. And mass meditations have been shown to make a change.'' The couple are no strangers to sex and social activism. Sheehan, no relation to anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, brought together nearly 50 women in 2002 who stripped naked and spelled out the word ''Peace.'' The stunt spawned a mini-movement called Baring Witness that led to similar unclothed demonstrations worldwide. The couple have studied evolutionary psychology and believe that war is mainly an outgrowth of men trying to impress potential mates, a case of ''my missile is bigger than your missile,'' as Reffell put it. By promoting what they hope to be a synchronized global orgasm, they hope to get people to channel their sexual energy into something more positive. The couple said interest appears strong, with 26,000 hits a day to their Web site, www.globalorgasm.org. ''The dream is to have everyone in the world (take part),'' Reffell said. ''And if that means laying down your gun for a few minutes, then hey, all the better.''

-I'll do what I can for the cause...wont you?

(H/T) Comandante Agi

Two Weeks Out

2006-11-21T00:52:00.000-05:00

Well, here we are two weeks out from the election that changed the face of American politics for about 45 minutes. Let’s take a quick look at what’s happened since then. Bush, press conference, 8 Nov 2006: “And hopefully out of this concept of folks sitting around a table sharing ways forward, that we will come up with a commonality; that we are able to then say to the American people, we've helped solve this problem.” Reid, D-NV, 10 Nov 2006 "The only way to move forward is with bipartisanship and openness, and to get some results." Bush: “I am going to work with people of both parties." Well isn’t that special? How did that all work out for you, Democrats? Bush is trying to push Bolton through the senate before the new session starts in January, even though Bolton was unable to actually clear this same Republican-led senate mere months ago. Looks like he won’t pass again, so that may leave the president with no other option but to give him another recess appt., because you KNOW he won’t get through in a Democratic-led senate. Cheney still plans on making another war. According to Seymour Hersh, he said this at a meeting a month before the election: “[V]ictory [by the Democrats in the Nov 7 elections] would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran” and Hersh adds that ‘Cheney said the White House would circumvent any legislative restrictions "and thus stop Congress from getting in its way,"’ He said this even without any Democrats talking about such a step. That’s a great example of preemptive politicking by the VP. He must be making this claim because he got bad intel on the democrats’ plans to introduce such legislation. “We’ve got to strike before they use their Weapons of Mass Check-and-Balance.” Bush is re-nominating a whole slew of federal judges that, again, couldn’t pass the same Republican-led senate already. No word yet on whether or not a pending loss of control of the senate will actually make the existing senate Republicans LESS scrupulous when selecting federal judges. And lastly, we come to find out Bush lied again. Yeah, I know, no big surprise there. But it is generally thought that lying wasn’t politically helpful to him in this case, which makes it confusing as to why he would go to the trouble of lying and then telling us about it, other than because he is a pathological liar and a megalomaniac. Observe: 1. Rumsfeld is staying till the end of my term. / I’m the decider 2. I'm firing Rumsfeld now that the elections are over. 3. I knew we were probably going to fire Rumsfeld months ago. 4. I didn’t tell you that I was firing Rumsfeld before the election because I didn’t want to politicize the war in Iraq. (See any previous speech about Iraq for direct evidence of the extreme silly-ness of that sentiment at this point.) So to recap, he's not firing Rummy ever, then he fired Rummy, then he said he didn’t want to tell us the truth for non-political reasons that are actually political reasons. Right. Way to go, sir. Point: As Rummy’s replacement, Bush has nominated an old spook who’s been in the CIA about as long as his father. He claims to understand that the ‘Murican people are frustrated with the war in Iraq, and wants to seek a fresh perspective. He claims to understand that we “thumped” the Republicans at the polls because we desire a change, to be implemented by the Democrats, preferably using their set of ideas and their framework of decision-making. So, his response is to make every effort to push his new Defense Secretary nominee through the Senate while it is still under Republican control. You know, to avoid any of those uncomfortable questions about Iran-Contra and how in-fucking-sensitive it is to put a man in charge of “fixing” Iraq who was, for all accounts, somewhat complicit in a program to sell weapons under the table to Iran, Iraq’s mortal enemy, while the two countries were at war, and while we were explicitly supporting Iraq’s chemical-weapon-slinging dictator in that war. (Republicans were for Saddam before they were against him.) Sure, Mr. President, that sounds like the perfect guy to head up any plan to fix Iraq. (Note to politicians: You could do worse than Rumsfeld. At least by this point, we knew what we were getting with that guy.) I’m sure you could find countless additional examples of Republicans claiming to relish the opportunity to employ bipartisanship in the coming years, while engaging in the subtlest form of double speak or out-and-out lies and continuing to push an even more radical agenda than ever before. (i.e. Gonzalez claiming that passing warrantless wiretapping legislation is necessary to preserve Constitutional freedoms, etc.) But it comes down to this: the Republicans have no desire to engage the Democrats on any serious level for more than a few weeks of the new year. Some of them have intellectually checked out already. Their media giants have been disparaging the Democratic party as traitors for years now. That kind of rhetoric burns into the national psyche, and won't go away just because of one pesky election. It creates situations where a caller to Boortz’s excuse for a radio show says, “Come on, Blue Dog Democrats. Prove to us that you’re not liberals. Work with the Republicans and pass some real Conservative economic packages.” Look here jacko, if your Republican demi-gods couldn’t get the shit passed when they were in power, don’t count on us to do your dirty work for you. Anyway, what I foresee is this: the Republicans are setting us up for a fall before power even changes hands. I’ll echo the Young Turks on this point. Bipartisan has become a code word for Republican ideas. Bipartisanship has come to mean our way or the highway. If the Republicans posit some crazy legislation or nominee and the Democrats exercise their constitutional authority to provide a check on the government’s excesses, they are obstructionist. But if the Republican speaker of the house refuses to let legislation enforcing US labor laws in a US territory even come out of committee to be scheduled for debate, much less a vote, that isn’t even noticed. But in a sense of bipartisanship, the Democrats are supposed to give up their right to filibuster a nominee, or else. Bull shit. Another rejection of Bolton might allow the White House to blame the Democrats for souring the new mood of bipartisanship in Washington. As soon as the Democrats are successful in blocking some republican nomination or legislation, like Bolton to the UN or warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, everyone in Washington and on your TV will cry foul. “Look,” they will say, “Look at the Democrats who aren’t playing fair. They are using their majority of votes to prevent us from continuing to pass whatever crazy legislation we want. How dare they?!? They aren’t being bipartisan. Mama!! I want my binky.” And then, somehow, the Democrats will come out as the bad guys for using their majority in both houses to control the terms of the debate in a way that makes just a little bit of sense. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe they won’t cry about bipartisanship and make lies about democrats who had the gall to stand up for the principles that got them elected. But as far as I can see, the Democrats would pretty much have to roll over from day one to avoid it, and then what’s the point, really? "Unless something comes up untoward at the hearings, which I don't expect, he [Gates] should be confirmed," said Sen. Harry Reid Oh, shit.

Take your pick.

2006-11-20T15:26:00.000-05:00

McCain Flip-Flops, Supports Immediate Reversal of Roe v. Wade VIDEO: McCain Says Jerry Falwell is No Longer an ‘Agent of Intolerance’ Straight Talkin’ McCain Takes Both Sides of Gay Marriage Amendment Debate ...and the latest: McCain: Sending More Troops Would ‘Absolutely…Be Terrible’ For Military, Risks ‘Broken Army’

Hello

2006-11-20T12:17:00.000-05:00

Being new to this blog, I figured I would introduce myself. About me: I am a 24 year old from Alabama. My husband is currently in the Navy and we have been married for 5 years. I consider myself the resident liberal female on this blog. My interests: Civil liberties, women's rights, foreign politics, science, and military affairs. Now, let's get back to politics.

To good not to share...

2006-11-20T09:44:00.000-05:00

-and while your at it stop over to Pissed on Politics if you are still wondering why I was about to exile myself until January.

Rummy being sued...again

2006-11-19T17:24:00.000-05:00

--Cyrus Kar: American citizen, Navy Veteran. Guilty of being Persian.

Weekend with the Arts

2006-11-18T03:16:00.000-05:00

Liberty Leading the People

William Shakespeare - To be, or not to be (from Hamlet 3/1)

To be, or not to be: that is the question:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;

No more; and by a sleep to say we end

The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks

That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation

Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;

To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come

When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,

Must give us pause: there's the respect

That makes calamity of so long life;

For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,

The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,

The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,

The insolence of office and the spurns

That patient merit of the unworthy takes,

When he himself might his quietus make

With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,

To grunt and sweat under a weary life,

But that the dread of something after death,

The undiscover'd country from whose bourn

No traveller returns, puzzles the will

And makes us rather bear those ills we have

Than fly to others that we know not of?

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;

And thus the native hue of resolution

Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,

And enterprises of great pith and moment

With this regard their currents turn awry,

And lose the name of action.

Back to Africa

2006-11-16T21:20:00.000-05:00

Though this issue has been addressed ala Bush-style I feel the need to illustrate this pressing matter of the Darfur Region of the Sudan. As of now over 400,000 people have been killed. This does not include the little girls not much older than my own daughters being gang raped. Think about that people. A woman in this country can stir up the media to the frenzy point for about a month over a simple rape. (Which turns out to be bullshit) Nevermind a gang rape of a little girl. This is an everyday event. Think I’m lying? Listen to this interview with a Marine Captain that was there. Simply click the link, and when the page loads click “listen”. A Marine's View of the Sudan Crisis It has been estimated that over 370,000 people have died. I would like to think that it is lower than that, yet I know human nature, it’s about 400,000. Simply a number right? It rolls of the tongue so well, but think about this. What would the world do if the entire population of Moscow died in a day? Moscow’s population is about 400,000. Here’s a few more cities, just to put it into context. Long Beach CA Denver CO Tuscon AZ Ft. Worth TX Kansas City MO Nashville TN Oklahoma City OK Boston MA These cities have an approximate population of 400,000. Picture what the world would do, much less the US if Boston died. Or Fort Worth.Busch stadium, the site of the World Champion Saint Louis Cardinals holds a max 49.676. Fill up ten Busch stadiums. And the American response to this situation? "The Secretary of State visited every region of the world in her first months in office, and Africa came last. Not only that, Dr. Rice is cutting short her first trip to the continent as America’s foreign policy chief to travel onward to Israel and the West Bank. This sends a clear signal that the Middle East is more important in her eyes, and Africa - the land of her own ancestors - is at the very bottom of the U.S. foreign policy agenda." Sudan Scuffle Not News: Genocide Is! Sooo, we demand apologies for getting roughed up, but what about the genocide? Never again eh? THIS is why “they” hate us. They hate our bullshit foreign policy that claims to stand upon the pillars of freedom and justice. Where is the justice for the little girl that got gang raped? The father that cannot get any help from his family out of fear of the Janjaweed? Here is a humble suggestion to the question that is no doubt in your head.

Just when you think you can walk away.

2006-11-16T17:36:00.001-05:00

Finally, this is what I've been waiting for...

“I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this countryfrom terrorists,” Sen. Dodd said. “But there is a right way to do thisand a wrong way to do this. It’s clear the people who perpetrated thesehorrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moralcompass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Butin taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in ourcountry’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”

The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act:

* Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees * Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants * Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials * Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence the deem to be unreliable * Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions * Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight * Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions “We in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror,” Dodd said. (H/T) Fallen Monk

Gone, gone.

2006-11-16T07:46:00.000-05:00

We were on Hiatus, but now we're not. Making up for all that we lost. Where was the sense, in taking a leave? Ohhh my Brothers... All of our friends have gone, gone. We were on Hiatus, but now we're not. Making up for all that we lost. Where was the sense, in taking a leave? Ohhh my Brothers... All of our friends have gone, gone. It's impossible to say, that our sound has gone away. We can make a promise to ourselves. We can take the guitars from the shelves. Turn on the amps and play me a song. All of our friends have gone, gone. It's impossible to say, living sound has gone away, So turn the amps up loud and plaaayyy!!! "Hiatus" lyrics from the Sutras' 2003 Album thousandaire -I'm on Hiatus from now through January. Let's see what NavySwan and Bacchus can do...

Out

2006-11-15T12:34:00.000-05:00

"You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't, you know." Indeed, he acknowledges, even though he needs to be careful -- "I expect to be in the [expletive] leadership of the House," he notes -- the money's awfully tempting. "

-Ethics is suppose to be job #1. That was the mandate of the 2006 mid-terms.

The Promised Land

2006-11-15T07:40:00.000-05:00

Everywhere I turn, the words that are on peoples lips, the keys stroked by their fingertips, Israel.

Israel's fabled ‘right to exist’ The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same Democrats Silent All About Israel False Front: The Left and the "Anti-Imperialist" Right How Lebanon And The US Are Alike -For my part I'm still stuck on the sentiment I expressed earlier this summer, I find it hard to give a fuck, the way they like to kill the shit out of each other. Go ahead, let me know why I should care.

It's that Time Again

2006-11-14T14:13:00.000-05:00

-One election ends, and another begins...

Wrong

2006-11-14T08:48:00.000-05:00

I'm sorry, but Kos is wrong here:

But what's more, Republicans in the Senate and House -- secure in their perpetual majorities -- instituted a long list of policies that dramatically discriminate against the minority party in both chambers. In the House, the minority is all but invisible. And in the Senate, the filibuster is all that's left keeping the minority party from utter irrelevance (and they tried to get rid of that). Me, I said at the time that I wanted to see the filibuster gone. Now Republicans will get to use it to stymie the Democratic agenda, just like opponents of civil rights used it to bottleneck important civil rights legislation in the 60s. But oh well. It is what it is. But here's the key -- every bit of anti-minority party legislation the GOP implemented these last 12 years better be kept intact by the new Democratic leadership. Let them reap what they sowed. They deserve every humiliation they designed for those in the minority status.

-How can we teach the lesson we refuse to learn? No one is a majority forever.

Full Moon, and the Tide is High

2006-11-13T06:46:00.000-05:00

...Wednesday's post continued: "You may have got your wish, I'm getting news in as we speak that Rumsfeld is out..." I thought I'd lost my train of thought following the end of that post, but I hadn't. The story wasn't over yet. Thursday I returned to range detail for the Task Force. Friday was drill, prepping for my home unit's range. Saturday it was my turn to fire. Sunday we cleaned the weapons. It's what we do in my church. Through out the weekend I saw a continuation of what I experienced when I returned to the office to tell of Rumsfeld's resignation. When I told the Major that Rumsfeld was out, there was an immediate look of surprise. The news echoed around the office. I thought it was over, and then, the aftershocks. What I saw in the aftermath was an exercise in sociology. A real mashup of Thomas theorem and Solomon Asch. Simply put, Thomas' theorem states that situations that are defined as real are real in their consequences. Asch found that "social pressure can make a person say something that is obviously incorrect." The victory of the Democratic Party taking both the House and the Senate, and the subsequent retirement of Rumsfeld, has pierced through years of fog that had enveloped both the military as well as civilian cultures. For so many years, with the aid of your "liberal media," many Americans, like those in Asch's research, would tell you that line "A" is the longest line out of the three, that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. Conventional Wisdom. Or as the British say, "bullocks." This is part of what I was trying to tackle in my recent post, For the Record. Hell, that's what we've all been doing as bloggers since we started. We've all been trying to crack through that thick sound bite shell around our fellow citizens. I was as stunned as my Commander was to hear of Rumsfeld's resignation in seeing those around me mull over what it meant--in addition to Tuesday's election results. Seeing them critique the Secretary of Defense, Republicans, the President...openly being critical. As John McCain said earlier this year, "elections have consequences."

-My Thanks to Pissed on Politics for diggin up this Youtube gem.

Town and Country

2006-11-12T07:53:00.000-05:00

The colors are flowing from the wall to the floor And only an outline still remains Cause the roof's got a hole in it And everything's been ruined by the rain There may be diamonds in that dream on the hill But the people who live there still complain Cause the roof's got a hole in it And everything is soaking in the rain No one can practice common sense that they see Through the nickel and dime'n and I'll explain When the roof's got a hole in it Everything gets ruined by the rain My head's got a hole in it And everything's been ruined by the rain -No animals were hurt in the shooting of this photo essay, taken on location in Auburn, NY. Lyrics and inspiration come from the Meat Puppets' Roof With A Hole from their 1994 Album, "Too High To Die"

The colors are flowing from the wall to the floor

And only an outline still remains

Cause the roof's got a hole in it

And everything's been ruined by the rain

There may be diamonds in that dream on the hill

But the people who live there still complain

Cause the roof's got a hole in it

And everything is soaking in the rain

No one can practice common sense that they see

Through the nickel and dime'n and I'll explain

When the roof's got a hole in it

Everything gets ruined by the rain

My head's got a hole in it

And everything's been ruined by the rain

-No animals were hurt in the shooting of this photo essay, taken on location in Auburn, NY. Lyrics and inspiration come from the Meat Puppets' Roof With A Hole from their 1994 Album, "Too High To Die"

To all that served.

2006-11-10T08:11:00.000-05:00

Shorter me

2006-11-09T17:30:00.000-05:00

Because time is...not so available lately.

1. Kill them with Kindness Work with the Republicans on a true bi-partisan basis, roll back all the mechanisms put in place by the Republicans in the last 12 years to muffle the voice of the minority party. Restore Democracy. 2. The Ethics reform that is currently on the Democratic agenda is not strong enough nor far reaching enough by half. Tougher everything. Lobbying restrictions. Campaign Finance. Ear Marks. Etc, etc... 3. Count the Votes! There needs to be a single National system, easily operated at a local level, of casting, counting, recounting, and certifying vote totals from standardized machine and absentee ballots alike. (not to mention a receipt) 4. Follow through on your platform. ...and take on the Corporations that are crushing our Nation. -I know (by way of some comments left here already) not everyone is going to agree with the tone of this. I know how ugly and nasty the Right ran the place for so long. But we are better than that. The Democrats simply need to deliver for the American People what they promised. First order of business is to toss William J. Jefferson out on his ass. Same goes for Mr. Hevesi, Governor Elect Spitzer.

Hightide When the Moon is Full

2006-11-08T17:49:00.001-05:00

As much as I would have liked to join in the revelry today, and as it often happens here oberblogensphere, the real world saw fit to interject itself. For most of the day I was on range detail. Ironic as it may sound, for all my political leanings, there is a special place in this sometimes contrarian heart for the smell of cordite. This gave me time to think, however, without the taint of all the first class pundits from both Left and Right planting their memes. First thing I noted was how my peers reacted. All the expected things came up. Will this signal to terrorists a capitulation? Taxes? Homeland Security money, will it dry up? Will anything get done in the next two years? In most situations like these I tend play the role of the silent observer, there are more than one kind of politics after all. Then the subject of Muslim culture came around the corner at full steam when some one commented on how "they" treat their women. "There are Conservatives out in Utah that bear more than a passing resemblance to Muslims in how they treat women," slipped out before I could stop myself. Now as I said, I try to play the role of the silent observer, for the most part. Sure I trade barbs with those I know to be politicos like myself, but not with everyone. The whole room paused. But there were no stares. It was a contemplative pause, and in a moment it was gone, and we were on to the next topic. Now I don't know if you know what this means, but there is no more politically incorrect environment than the United States Army. Bill Maher would blanch. Say the wrong thing and prepare to be pounced on (but in a playful way, there's no better way to pass the time than to give your battle buddy some shit about what they let slip). It means it was absorbed and excepted. Later on, as I was driving back from the range I dialed up some Bill O'Reilly on the radio for shits and giggles. Some guy had called in to grip about how Secretary Rumsfeld had been a giant weight around the Administration's neck, and Bush should have dumped him 6 months ago...when Billo interjected, "...what?" [paraphrase] "You may have got your wish, I'm getting news in as we speak that Rumsfeld is out..." To be continued tomorrow morning...I feel like I haven't slept in ages.

Ken Mehlman and other liars

2006-11-08T08:59:00.000-05:00

I'm literally laughing my ass off at this guy. Last week he was the cockiest son of a bitch, now he's talking "bi-partisan" and "hearing messages". That is comedy. http://img.video.msn.com/s/us/i/vlbg_msnbc.gif I've been making the rounds all over the radio, and one word sums up the tone. Somber One could suppose that the American electorate is not as stupid as some think. They realize that there is no mechanism for taking out a Secretary of Defense, only through impeachment can this happen. http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=77943 Just some more comedy. Namaste and chew on that. Madame Speaker?

Time to do the Dance

2006-11-08T06:37:00.000-05:00

-The easy part, however, is over.

Come on Blue!

2006-11-07T18:31:00.000-05:00

Via Think Progress:

VIRGINIA

D: 52 R: 47

RHODE ISLAND

D: 53 R: 46

PENNSYLVANIA

D: 57 R: 42

OHIO

D: 57 R: 43

NEW JERSEY

D: 52 R: 45

MONTANA

D: 53 R: 46

MISSOURI

D: 50 R: 48

MARYLAND

D: 53 R: 46

TENNESSEE

D: 48 R: 51

ARIZONA

D: 46 R: 50

I was going to stay out of the fray. With A thousand million live bloggers, who needs another, right? I've been bouncing around different blogs, mainly pinging them off of the CNN E-lection Nite Blog Party page. But if you happen to stop by my humble abode, consider this an open thread.

Update:

The Politics of Death

2006-11-06T16:26:00.000-05:00

Who cares what Bush thinks about the verdict of Saddam. What do the Iraqis think? Here's a response from one disheartened Baghdad resident who sees her country falling apart around her while our president smirks about his "successes" and uses the occasion for political gain. From Riverbend:

It’s not about the man- presidents come and go, governments come and go. It’s the frustration of feeling like the whole country and every single Iraqi inside and outside of Iraq is at the mercy of American politics. It is the rage of feeling like a mere chess piece to be moved back and forth at will. It is the aggravation of having a government so blind and uncaring about their peoples needs that they don’t even feel like it’s necessary to go through the motions or put up an act. And it's the deaths. The thousands of dead and dying, with Bush sitting there smirking and lying about progress and winning in a country where every single Iraqi outside of the Green Zone is losing.
Once again… The timing of all of this is impeccable- two days before congressional elections. And if you don’t see it, then I’m sorry, you’re stupid. Let’s see how many times Bush milks this as a ‘success’ in his coming speeches.
A final note. I just read somewhere that some of the families of dead American soldiers are visiting the Iraqi north to see ‘what their sons and daughters died for’. If that’s the goal of the visit, then, “Ladies and gentlemen- to your right is the Iraqi Ministry of Oil, to your left is the Dawry refinery… Each of you get this, a gift bag containing a 3 by 3 color poster of Al Sayid Muqtada Al Sadr (Long May He Live And Prosper), an Ayatollah Sistani t-shirt and a map of Iran, to scale, redrawn with the Islamic Republic of South Iraq. Also… Hey you! You- the female in the back- is that a lock of hair I see? Cover it up or stay home.”
And that is what they died for.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi army had enough free time on their hands to raid two of their own TV stations and shut them down for the high crime of reporting the news. Apparently the terrorists took the day off or something. I wonder if those operations were overseen by the American support teams embedded with them. Is that what we are fighting for over there? We deposed a dictator who oppressed his country so that an elected government would have the chance to oppress their country. Is that the course the president wants us to stay on? Or is this part of Conrad Burns' secret plan that we weren't supposed to know about? As Riverbend relates, the trial was a sham. The newest judge cut the defense's case short in order to get the sentence handed down in time for Bush's political games. In these situations, part of the goal of putting your old dictator on trial is to assist in the national healing process by revealing all of the crimes that were committed, putting away rumors of crimes that didn't actually happen, and coming to some kind of national reconciliation about the conclusion of that dark era of your country's past. In this case, the trial of the dictator was left to the partisan, sectarian government and courts, headed by those whom Saddam had oppressed. This is no way to create the impression among die-hard supporters of the deposed leader that he is being justly punished for his crimes. I am not aware of any other dictator who has been tried by his own people after international intervention. He should have been removed to the Hague, tried by the ICC in an impartial court of international significance. His trial should have been brought above the current wave of sectarian reprisal killings. It should be beyond reproach. As it is, the Sunni separatists will never accept this court's rulings, the riots and demonstrations on both sides of the country's political divide have already begun, and this outcome will likely lead to more death all around.

Now go Vote!

2006-11-06T14:16:00.001-05:00

(H/T) The Tattered Coat

For the Record

2006-11-05T13:10:00.000-05:00

While reading a post over at The Mudville Gazette I found a link to a Department of Defense website called "For the Record." As a Soldier and Citizen I take it as my duty and responsibility to respond. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PROVIDED A BALANCED PICTURE: CHALLENGE THOSE WHO CLAIM ADMINISTRATION OFFERED A ROSY SCENARIO: Via Think Progress:

Dec. 18, 2002: KING: What’s the current situation in Afghanistan? RUMSFELD: It is encouraging. They have elected a government through the Loya Jirga process. The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.

Feb. 7, 2003: “It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

Feb. 20 2003: “‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,’ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.”

Mar. 30, 2003: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

IRAQIS ARE RISKING THEIR LIVES FOR THEIR COUNTRY: Powerline, via Glenn Greenwald @ Unclaimed Territory:

Unfortunately, though, more was required of the Iraqi people than just voting. The situation called on them to elect leaders who would work in good faith for national reconciliation, rather than tilting substantially in the direction of one sectarian faction. The Iraqis failed to do this when they voted in the Shia-militia-friendly Maliki government, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to work with the current government to curb sectarian violence.

Ahmad Chalabi, via Norwegianity:

So, Ahmad Chalabi, what went wrong in Iraq in the war you helped to sell? “The Americans sold us out,” he tells longtime Baghdad reporter Dexter Filkins in a lengthy cover story in this coming Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, reviewed by E&P. Chalabi was the Iraqi exile who worked -- via everyone from Paul Wolfowitz to Judith Miller -- to convince America to topple Saddam in 2003 (not that many in the administration needed much convincing). Now, in an interview in his London home, Chalabi, betraying what Filkins calls “a touch of bitterness,” declares, “The real culprit in all this is Wolfowitz,” the former assistant secretary of defense, whom he still considers a friend. “They chickened out. The Pentagon guys chickened out…The Americans screwed it up.” But that’s not because they did too little but, rather, too much. Chalabi thinks the U.S. should have exited quickly and turned things over to Iraqis, such as himself and Moktada al-Sadr. “It was a puppet show!" he says referring to the occupation. “The worst of all worlds. We were in charge, and we had no power.” He adds: “America betrays its friends. It sets them up and betrays them. I’d rather be America’s enemy.”

WE WILL GIVE TROOPS WHAT THEY NEED TO WIN: ...After we pay the bills?

~Halliburton billed taxpayers $1.4 billion in questionable and undocumented charges under its contract to supply troops in Iraq, as documented by the Pentagon’s own auditors. ~Halliburton allowed our troops in Iraq to shower, bathe, and sometimes brush their teeth with water that tested positive for e. coli and coliform bacteria. One expert has said that the troops would have been better off using the highly polluted Euphrates River. Halliburton has admitted that it lacked “an organizational structure to ensure that water was being treated in accordance with Army standards and its contractual requirements.” ~Halliburton served the troops food that had spoiled or passed its expiration date. Halliburton managers ordered employees to remove bullets from food in trucks that had come under attack, then saved the bullets as souvenirs while giving the food to unwitting soldiers and Marines. ~Halliburton employees threw themselves a lavish Super Bowl Party, but passed the cost on to taxpayers by claiming they had purchased supplies for the troops.

-As for some of the other statements, maybe I'm testing their truthfulness by seeing what happens to me for speaking about what I know to be true.

Move it On down the line...

2006-11-04T10:32:00.000-05:00

This may not be exactly a Duncan Black style "Simple Answers to Simple Questions," but I'll give it a shot...

qrswave of The Truth Will Set You Free asks,

"wow, how can they possibly 'forget' 8000 voters???"

Let's see what the local paper can tell us, Onondaga County fails to tell some about new polls Letters rushed to 5,300 who were not notified because of clerical error, officials say. Saturday, November 04, 2006 By John Mariani Staff writer

In the omitted districts, Democrats make up 39 percent of the registered voters and Republicans, 29.5 percent.

-Do you think that could tip the scales in a neck & neck race?

Unbelievable

2006-11-04T08:21:00.000-05:00

I watch a movie, at a movie theater, maybe 2 or three times a year. I never go on opening night. I watched Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan last night, and it is easily one of the top five comedies I've ever seen. This by far the best movie of the year. Nice

A Call to Arms

2006-11-03T17:16:00.000-05:00

Breaking:

Polling Places Change for Some Voters Last Update: 11/3/2006 4:58:44 PM This story is available on your cell phone at mobile.9wsyr.com

If you are not sure where to vote, click here to go to Onondaga County’s website, where you can enter your address to find your polling place.
Syracuse (WSYR-TV) - Board of Election workers thought the envelope stuffing was over, when they sent more than 6,000 households in the county letters telling them their polling places had changed.
But they missed some voters, about 8,000 of them.
Friday, after discovering the problem, they mailed out notices to everyone they missed. The Board of Elections says the new notices should arrive on Saturday or Monday.
The changes have been set in stone for a while now, but the last minute catch by the Board of Elections hopefully means less confusion on Election Day.

This could have already happened where you live...and no one caught it. People, you must get on the phones this weekend and through Tuesday. You can voluteer at MoveOn.org We cannot let this go by.

Open Source

2006-11-03T08:14:00.000-05:00

Remember the uproar over the New York Times publishing a story on the sifting of bank records by the Bush Administration back in June? Remember how Michelle Malkin, Patterico, and the folks at Wizbang, not to mention a certain Congressmen, were frothing at the mouth and/or** shouting treason at the top of their lungs? Then it turned out to be old news, that you could have googled this information and found years old articles about the program by the Washington Post and Baltimore Sun, and statements from the administration itself. Seems that wasn't the only kind of sensitive information you could use "The Google" to find on "The Internets" about "Government Secrets."

U.S. pulls site said to reveal nuke info Questions raised about whether Iraq documents gave too much information NBC News and news services Updated: 7:53 a.m. ET Nov 3, 2006

WASHINGTON - The nation’s top intelligence official took down a government Web site with captured Saddam Hussein-era Iraqi documents, after questions were raised whether it provided too much information about making atomic bombs. In a statement Thursday night, a spokesman for National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said his office has suspended public access to the Web site “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.” The action came after The New York Times raised questions about the contents of the government site, called the “Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal.” The Times reported Thursday night on its Web site that weapons experts say documents posted on the government site in recent weeks provided dangerous detail about Iraq’s covert nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Remember, it's not leaking if the Administration does it for its own crass political purposes, or out of ineptitude. It is treasonous to reveal things that have already been revealed, unless you reveal some 16,000 DOCUMENTS ON HOW TO BUILD A NUCLEAR BOMB TO THE WHOLE WORLD. In that case it's just a simple mistake that can be fixed by pulling the information from the internet that's been out there for months. Information that was only there because Republican politicians wanted so bad for their fantasies about Saddam's WMD to come true. Feel safer yet? -Where the hell is Crazy Curt Weldon on this?

---

Update via Attytood: How the 101st Fighting Keyboarders (and Rick Santorum and George W. Bush) are helping Iran get the nuclear bomb Related, (H/T) Pandagon: A tribute to the Fighting 101st, The War of Words **Special Amendment As noted by the author himself, Patterico never called what the Times did "treason." As a matter of fact, these were his exact sentiments:

I am biting down on my rage right now. I’ll resist the temptation to say Ann Coulter was right about where Timothy McVeigh should have gone with his truck bomb. I’ll say only this: it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the people at the New York Times are not just biased media folks whose antics can be laughed off. They are actually dangerous.

That uneasy feeling in the back of your mind

2006-11-02T14:11:00.000-05:00

Today I noticed a headline on MSNBC that otherwise may have been benign at most, but gave me this eery feeling in light of some other recent articles. You see people, bad things usually sneak in slowly in small, sometimes non-threatening, manners. But, these things can add up over time and come and bite you on the ass. Here is the story, that I am referring to: U.S. Sweep nets nearly 11,000 fugitives: Record set for arrests in a week, attorney general announces

"Gonzales was to discuss the roundup, code-named Operation Falcon III, at a news conference Thursday."

Operation Falcon III? Sounds like a military operation. Also, maybe I am paranoid, but a massive criminal sweep (record setting even) just days after a story that said Bush had signed a bill that, from what I understand, has a section in it that underminds the Insurrection Act. According to Senator Leahy and some Republican Senator from Montana, this section in this bill would make it easier for the President to declare martial law. Here is an excerpt from Leahy's website:

Not only does this Conference Report unfortunately drop the Empowerment amendment entirely, it adopts some incredible changes to the Insurrection Act, which would give the President more authority to declare martial law. Let me repeat: The National Guard Empowerment Act, which is designed to make it more likely for the National Guard to remain in State control, is dropped from this conference report in favor of provisions making it easier to usurp the Governors control and making it more likely that the President will take control of the Guard and the active military operating in the States.

The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor. When the Insurrection Act is invoked posse comitatus does not apply. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy, and it is for that reason that the Insurrection Act has only been invoked on three — three — in recent history. The implications of changing the Act are enormous, but this change was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals.

If that is not frightening, I don't know what is. But, this is not all. All you have to do is add this up with the loss of habeas corpus in the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Acts, eavesdropping, cameras cropping up all over the place (they are going to put 30 up in downtown where I live), ect... After a while you see a pattern emerging. And all of this brings me to this new report released by Privacy International. The study ranked the US near the bottom in regard to privacy. We are categorized as an "extensive surveillance society". You can read an analysis of the study here. I guess you have to ask yourself, "When does it stop being paranoia and start being reality?" I think the answer to that is that it already is the reality that we live in. Now that we have that answer, the next question is, "What will the government have to do with these "tools" they have collected before the citizens of this country stand up and refuse to give any more of our rights away?" Oh, and by the way, I know that I started this thread with a story about criminals, but the point is, could this be practice? Will the next "operation" be rounding up actual criminals, or will it be to round up political dissidents? Is it curious that they did this so close to the elections? If there is a large group of protesters after the elections, protesting that there was voter fraud, could they be rounded up? Couldn't Bush just call up the National Guard, without the governor's permission, and have them round up protesters? Then, according to the new Military Commissions Act, couldn't a tribunal then declare them "enemy combatants" and send them to some undisclosed prison where they would not be allowed to petition a court as to their innocence because they no longer have habeas corpus? Will they do this? Who knows. The point is that they now have all the "tools" to be able to do this. You know, all the "tools" they are always talking about needing to fight the "war on terrorism". Those "tools", for the most part, are useless against terrorists. But, they are very useful in controlling your own citizens. Welcome to the "extensive surveillance society."

Why

2006-11-02T09:45:00.000-05:00

Missing soldier still being held - U.S. military 02 Nov 2006 14:08:58 GMT Source: Reuters

U.S. troops lifted roadblocks around the Shi'ite slum district of Sadr City on Tuesday when Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki ordered them out, flexing his political muscle after a week of public friction with Washington ahead of U.S. elections. The checkpoints, part of a massive U.S. effort to find the kidnapped U.S. soldier, had brought gridlock to several parts of the city and drawn the ire of Sadr City residents who complained of collective punishment. Sadr City is a stronghold of the Mehdi Army, a militia loyal to Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who recently ordered rogue elements of the militia to step back into line. Maliki, who depends on Sadr's movement for key support in parliament, has struggled to crack down on militias blamed by Sunnis and Washington for operating death squads.

Let's put aside all the partisan bullshit for a second. Let's take off our respective red and blue pajamas. Why has the United States of America left a soldier on the battle field to fend for himself? What are you going to tell his wife? Why has U.S. Army translator Ahmed Qusai al-Taayie been left in Sadr City to rot? Is this how you support the troops? How do you expect us, as citizens to believe in this cause...does Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki lead our Army now! I'm disgusted. (H/T) Media Matters Update: From an earlier post that dove tails into this one... -I'll let the Kerry matter rest, because, as Keith points out, their are greater tresspassers, as this post already notes.

Driveway Moment

2006-11-02T06:35:00.001-05:00

Do you know what a diesel engine sounds like? A large one? It's got a particular vibration. They even have landmines these days that can be set to go off only when a large enough engine with a particular vibration passes by. I was sitting in my car out in front of my house after getting home from work when one of those big trucks passed by. It passed by and I don't really know what kind it was because I didn't look up. All Things Considered, November 1, 2006 - The term "war on terror" is ubiquitous, but the meaning of the word "war" has evolved. For most of the last 2,000 years, war has meant something very conventional and traditional. The current war on terror, however, is a completely unconventional, non-traditional type of conflict. ...later

"[War] ends with the vanquishing of an opponent, with some form or armistice or truce -- some kind of surrender instrument or document," Hoffman says.

But in the war on terror, there's no specific battlefield and the enemy isn't an army.

-Please listen to the whole thing if you have the time...

All signs point too...

2006-11-01T11:26:00.000-05:00

Chaos

An intelligence summary at the bottom of the slide reads “urban areas experiencing ‘ethnic cleansing’ campaigns to consolidate control” and “violence at all-time high, spreading geographically.” According to a Central Command official, the index on civil strife has been a staple of internal command briefings for most of this year. The analysis was prepared by the command’s intelligence directorate, which is overseen by Brig. Gen. John M. Custer.

-God bless the Powerpoint Ranger, and thank you too, magic 8-ball, you ain't never been wrong! See also:

Iraqi Demands Pullback; U.S. Lifts Baghdad Cordon

Doesn't anyone listen to Rove anymore?

2006-11-01T00:27:00.000-05:00

The election is in the bag people, too bad no one's told Dick Cheney...

If only someone had let the VP know that the American people are going to return a Republican majority to Congress, then he wouldn't have had to tell the Secret Service to contract Mid-Atlantic Shredding Services to stop by the compound for a little clean up. -There's one phrase you definitely wont be hearing if the Republicans do retain control, "You mean I have to be sworn in to testify?"

Conversation with a Candidate

2006-10-31T23:59:00.000-05:00

**On top 'til the 8th of November. This afternoon I had the opportunity to sit down with Mike Sylvia, Libertarian candidate for New York's 24th Congressional district. We met at Yesteryears Coffee House & Cafe on State St. in Auburn, New York. Conversation started off smoothly as we talked a little shop on HTML--Sylvia's site has been recognized in an article by CNET on web compliance by candidates--and about differences in online presence between the various candidates. From there went right into it.

One of the first topics we discussed was a comment I'd seen at a blog in response to my mention of the up coming interview, something to the effect of, "I hope he's not one of those Neil Boortz Libertarians," to which Sylvia replied: "Neil Boortz is not a Libertarian."

He went on to explain that there have been many ideologues from across the political spectrum seeking to use the Libertarian label to distance themselves their prior political missteps--something I later noted I'd seen recently by Joe Scarborough. He didn't believe Boortz's stance on The Fair Tax was a particularly Libertarian one, nor that an Ayn Rand style "Libertopia," where Social Darwinism and laissez-faire Capitalism rule the day, was particularly good. Sylvia's focus as a Libertarian seems to be on smaller Government as a means for greater accountability and thereby more responsiveness to the Will of the People. Sylvia remarked that he'd been motivated to run for office after seeing the 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik, speak at Cornell. Reading Badnarik's position that, "government does not grant rights but rather acknowledges them, that they exist independently of government as part of who and what we are, and that, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure them," I can see what inspired him. He also mentioned John Mackey, co-founder of Whole Foods, as an influance. Mackey's philosophy is outlined in this September 2006 Op-Ed Piece in the New York Times:

Mackey is a passionate environmentalist, an advocate of animal rights, a promoter of sustainable development and a self-proclaimed libertarian. Call him a bleeding-heart libertarian. He wants to spread the free-market gospel, but he sees an obstacle. "Corporations are lifting billions of people out of poverty," he says. "Why are they so hated?" Mackey's answer is that capitalism has a branding problem: its practitioners are experts at marketing everything except their own system. They justify corporate philanthropy, like donating to the United Way, not because it's virtuous but because it buys public good will and thus contributes to the company's bottom line. To hard-core free-marketeers, the corporation's only mission is to generate profits for shareholders. To Mackey, that's too narrow a vision. He thinks that socially conscious companies like Whole Foods have flourished because their founders, employees and customers want a corporation to have grander goals than enriching shareholders. Mackey defines his company's mission as improving the health and well-being of everyone on the planet. Before taking the company public, he told investors that he was going to devote 5 percent of the profits to philanthropy, so they can't complain now that he's robbing them.

Later in the conversation, other reasons for running for office emerge. He sites a dislike of the process as it stands, machine politics, corporate money, aribitrary conclusions as to who is electable, and the integrity of our voting system; all the things that so many of us have come to find disgusting, as well as discouraging, about modern politics. As we continue talking I feel a scratching at the inside of the back of my skull. This always occures when a bout of Staircase Thinking is about to come on. Staircase Thinking is the process where someone says something to you, and you realize what you should have said in return after you're walked away and are already half-way down the staircase. Already knowing Sylvia's position on The Military Commission Act of 2006 (it being what attracted me to his campaign in the first place), we discussed a little foriegn policy, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and the like. Then he brought up a few things I didn't know, he himself had been in the Rhode Island National Guard in the late 70's. He also brought up Sen. Patrick Leahy's remarks on the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007. The changes being suggested for the Insurrection Act and the dismissal of The National Guard Empowerment Act were disturbing to say the least. I was impressed that a candidate from any party would be talking about this. You certainly wont hear Ray Meier or Michael Arcuri talking about in depth issues like these. Soon it became time to wrap things up. We gather up our things and went to the counter to pay for the coffee. Compulsive picture clicker that I am, I asked a lady standing in line to take a shot of us shaking hands. She obliged us and, as I turned to settle my check, Sylvia turned to the lady and asked if she would like one of the pamphlets he’d brought along. She then asked him why she’d seen none of his ads on T.V. Me, I would have blushed, stammered even. Mr. Sylvia looked at the lady and said something to the effect of, "now why would I want to add more of that filth." Everyone had a laugh at that one. ...and that's when it hit me. The nagging itch scratched. This guy is honest. He means it. He's got my vote, and not because of what Arcuri did or didn't do as a Democrat, but because he should have had it all along.

Johnny Boy

2006-10-31T12:33:00.000-05:00

You could take the recent comments by John Kerry one way, that an uninformed, uneducated public leads to an out of control Government and thus foriegn and domestic policy disasters. Or you could take it the way others have. Me, I'd just ask that Kerry keep his trap shut until Nov. 8th. "Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree." - Thomas Jefferson to Littleton Waller Tazewell, 1805. Update via Hoffmania!:

If anyone thinks that a veteran, someone like me, who's been fighting my entire career to provide for veterans, to fight for their benefits, to help honor what their service is, if anybody thinks that a veteran would somehow criticize more than 140,000 troops serving in Iraq and not the president and his people who put them there, they're crazy.

It's just wrong. This is a classic GOP textbook Republican campaign tactic.

I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans who will not debate real policy, who won't take responsibility for their own mistakes, standing up and trying to make other people the butt of those mistakes.

I'm sick and tired of a whole bunch of Republican attacks, most of which come from people who never wore the uniform and never had the courage to stand up and go to war themselves.

Enough is enough. We're not going to stand for this. This policy is broken. And this president and his administration didn't do their homework. They didn't study what would happen in Iraq. They didn't study and listen to the people who were the experts and would have told them.

And they know that's what I was talking about yesterday. I'm not going to be lectured by a White House or by the likes of Rush Limbaugh who's taking a day off from mimicking and attacking Michael J. Fox, who's now going to try to attack me and lie about me and distort me.

No way. It disgusts me that a bunch of these Republican hacks who've never worn the uniform of our country are willing to lie about those who did.

It's over.

Anaylisis: This is an egotistical person who realized, belatedly, that he had been walked over in the 2004 election, and now wants to pick a fight--at this critical juncture--to get his name back in the spotlight and prove he's no flip floppity push over. Kiss 08' goodbye, John.

Rips me apart.

2006-10-29T15:35:00.000-05:00

The Secret Letter From Iraq

-They're out there, doing this for us right now. I can think of one thing I can do for them come Nov. 7th.

See also: Iraq War Vets Return; Some Have No Home All Things Considered,

October 27, 2006 · National Guard Cpl. Joe Raicaldo is home from Iraq with things he didn't have when he left: an honorable discharge, metal rods and screws up and down his spine, and an arm that moves like a robot's. He's also homeless, living in his car. There are at least 600 recent vets who are homeless.

(yes Blogger is still bloggered)

Another plan

2006-10-29T12:30:00.000-05:00

I recently called into a right wing radio show. While the dj (or host) praised my call and the things I had to say, the illiterate caller after me ragged my ass. He claimed that I, like the rest of my peers, had no plan. All thought and no action. I beg to differ. Those that know me personally (Navyswan) know that I am both thought and action. So, here is a plan. 'Tis a four step plan to resolve the apathy on the part of the electorate, and it will definitely curb political mudslinging and/or corruption. To the inevitable detractors I say; at least it's a start and at least it's not slamming my head against the wall (which seems to be the conservative way of thinking). 1. Cease all corporate donations to political parties, candidates, and incumbents. Those in violation will be fined an exhorbitant amount. 2. Cease all PAC contributions. 3. Cap individual contributions. This has already been done, I think the cap is set at a thousand dollars (maybe 500). 4. Abolish the Electoral College. Until this happens I will not vote in a Presidential Election. In recent years it has become apparent that this arcane institution is a holdover from an era in which most of our country was illiterate and easily swayed. Not that we're much better off, but at least the literacy rates have increased. The resultant fear would be that the electorate would fall victim to demagogues. I'll take my chances. Until this particular step occurs our vote will not count. It will only count in theory and is not the ultimate example of the will of the people. Such will being infallible, given that all pertinent information is provided and the electorate is not affected by outside sources of fear or misinformation. Namaste

test

2006-10-28T12:50:00.000-04:00

Blogger sucks. Now it's working right. Now it's not. This all a conspiracy to make us migrate en mass to Beta. BTW: Have you met the Silent Patriot?

Reap

2006-10-27T10:42:00.000-04:00

When I look up from desk, and out the window at the trees across the way, I do not picture in my mind's eye the runway there, and the F-16s lounging around on it. I do not hear the office chatter. I see a field bordered by Birch and Maple playing a melody of color that floats on the air and settles on my should as I walk through the brisk autumn air towards the other side. I hear, through my steadily reddening ears, the Tom's gobble, Bucks scrapping the saplings, and the obligatory rustle of leaves beneath my feet. I can smell the blanket of white approaching from Tug Hill in the North Country. The Final Harvest is here.

Bombs Away

2006-10-27T06:42:00.000-04:00

But we're O.K., Bombs away, In old Bombay...

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl --AZ-01: Rick Renzi --AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth --CA-04: John Doolittle --CA-11: Richard Pombo --CA-50: Brian Bilbray --CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave --CO-05: Doug Lamborn --CO-07: Rick O'Donnell --CT-04: Christopher Shays --FL-13: Vernon Buchanan --FL-16: Joe Negron --FL-22: Clay Shaw --ID-01: Bill Sali --IL-06: Peter Roskam --IL-10: Mark Kirk --IL-14: Dennis Hastert --IN-02: Chris Chocola --IN-08: John Hostettler --IA-01: Mike Whalen --KS-02: Jim Ryun --KY-03: Anne Northup --KY-04: Geoff Davis --MD-Sen: Michael Steele --MN-01: Gil Gutknecht --MN-06: Michele Bachmann --MO-Sen: Jim Talent --MT-Sen: Conrad Burns --NV-03: Jon Porter --NH-02: Charlie Bass --NJ-07: Mike Ferguson --NM-01: Heather Wilson --NY-03: Peter King --NY-20: John Sweeney --NY-26: Tom Reynolds --NY-29: Randy Kuhl --NC-08: Robin Hayes --NC-11: Charles Taylor --OH-01: Steve Chabot --OH-02: Jean Schmidt --OH-15: Deborah Pryce --OH-18: Joy Padgett --PA-04: Melissa Hart --PA-07: Curt Weldon --PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick --PA-10: Don Sherwood --RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee --TN-Sen: Bob Corker --VA-Sen: George Allen --VA-10: Frank Wolf --WA-Sen: Mike McGavick --WA-08: Dave Reichert -Hello Daddy, hello Mom, it's your Friday Google Bomb! A nod and a wink goes to , Chris Bowers

Jack of the Lantern

2006-10-26T21:59:00.000-04:00

Deployed... -Are you prepaired for Samhain?

Unfunded Mandate #1342

2006-10-26T07:55:00.000-04:00

Bush signing bill authorizing 700 miles (1,125 kilometers) of fencing on U.S.-Mexico border The Associated Press October 25, 2006

WASHINGTON Republicans want to claim they are tough on illegal immigration, and President George W. Bush is trying to give them a pre-election nod by signing a bill that authorizes 700 miles (1,125 kilometers) of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Yet the measure Bush was putting into law Thursday before heading for campaign stops in Iowa and Michigan offers no money for the project covering one-third of the 2,100-mile (3380-kilometer) border. And its passage contrasts with the lack of congressional support for Bush's broader proposal that would give some of the 11 million to 12 million immigrants illegally in the United States a shot at citizenship.

-No immigrant left behind? I hear the signing ceremony will be "low key." Update...

Bush’s ‘Fence Bill’ Doesn’t Actually Create Fence

Unprofessional

2006-10-25T08:30:00.000-04:00

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side." - Aristotle

Get this, it is "unprofessional" to have the above quote as a tagline in my e-mail, or so I've been told by my supervisors. Someone who gets the disto complained. In consolation, no one is allowed to have a tagline anymore, no more bible passages nor Patton quotes. I guess some truths are not only timeless, but all too timely.

The Art of Rhetoric

2006-10-23T23:53:00.000-04:00

Rhetoric-"(in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience." Rhetoric is a common tool used everyday. Most people do not know how to detect it nor understand how it is used. It is pretty uncommon for students to be taught how to identify rhetoric in movies, literature, or even the news. This unfortunately has allowed the right wing to shape every discussion that takes place in the political sphere. Even on the most left-leaning websites, you will see very few people addressing any situation outside of the rhetorical parameters defined by the right wing. In an interview titled, How the Myth of Spat on Vets Holds Back the Antiwar Movement, at LewRockwell.com, Jerry Lembcke explains how the rhetoric of "support the troops" has effectively defined and limited the antiwar movement by keeping the war critics off message.

I teach at Holy Cross College and just the other day in one of my classes, in the context of talking about the context of the Bush administration’s strategy of being very accusatory toward critics of the war policy as being "cut and run" Democrats, "soft on terrorism..." With no more context than that, one of my students said she was "undecided about the war, but as long as the troops were fighting it was really important to "support the troops and we have to support the mission…" Now is not the time to be critical of the war, it was, in her mind…all mixed together.

That’s the way it works on people’s emotions. It throws them off-target. The target is the war itself and what we need to be doing is opposing the war itself. Often emotions get kind of confused with this stuff about "supporting the troops." It creates just enough space for the administration to push on ahead.

Q: Yes, it seems to be a good strategy to distract from the main issue, namely the policy of making war itself. I never quite understand why it’s so important to focus on the supporting the troops as so central an issue. It doesn’t really matter, since the troops in fact have little, in fact no say, in war policies to begin with.

Lembcke: Yes, it confuses the means and ends of war, it becomes a form of demagoguery. It makes a non-issue an issue, "support or not supporting the troops." At a humanitarian level, none of us wants to put people in harm’s way. The people who oppose the wars are most strident in that objective of keeping people out of the war. That’s not an issue, but it keeps us from focusing on the war itself and talking about it. And one of the things I’m concerned about now is a certain strain of the anti-war movement has gotten caught up in this itself. There’s a certain group of antiwar types who focus on what happens to the soldiers, how they’re damaged psychologically, physically,…I’ve been to a number of anti-war rallies now where all they talk about is PTSD and what happens to "our boys" when we send them off to war. It’s sort of a mirroring of the political right’s approach. They make the "support the troops" ideology the basis for supporting the war, and some strands in the anti-war movement now mimic that we need to oppose the war by "supporting the troops" and, I’ve been to some antiwar protests where very very little is said about the war itself!

We hear instead about getting the troops the help they need and heart rendering stories of parents of sons who have committed suicide after they come home, etc. That stuff from the anti-war left is as beclouding as similar rhetoric from the right, in that it takes us away from a political discourse, which we need in order to focus our energies around stopping the war and its causes.

While many may argue that this is a tactic that uses the right’s ideology against them and therefore one that works well, we cannot overlook the fact that we are letting the right define the rhetoric. We have to have our own voice. Supporting the troops and trying to help them is an honorable thing, but the problem is when it becomes the central focus, or in some cases, the only focus. There are many reasons to detest this war. The war was illegal according to international standards, the administration lied to the American people about WMD's and mushroom clouds, 655,000 Iraqis have died, etc. If people only resist the war in reference to the troops, we have lost the rhetorical battle. There is no way to “win” an argument if you let your opponent set the boundaries. I would say that in addition to what this interview discusses, another rhetorical boundary is the right’s argument that “it doesn’t matter how or why we got there, we are there now and must stay the course”. This idea has spread all over, crossed ideological boundaries, and has nearly become a common sentiment. But, this idea is wrong. Why and how we got to Iraq are the most important aspects of this war for two main reasons: One, how we got there violated both foreign laws (war of aggression) and domestic laws (the president sent us to war without Congressional approval). Two, why did we go? Well, that has changed over and over since 2003. All of the reasons so far have turned out to be bull. The only consistent position they have held is that we didn’t invade Iraq to take over their oil. However, according to a new report at Alternet, it appears that the Iraqi Parliament and the Big Four oil companies are about to finalize deals for 30 year contracts practically stealing billions from the Iraqi government. But, why is it important to know these things? One, we need to get out of Iraq. Two, we need to make sure that the people who have orchestrated this whole disaster will be held accountable. And three, maybe the most important, we have to have these answers to learn from this and NEVER let this happen again.

nitpicking

2006-10-23T21:50:00.000-04:00

This is in reference to a spot on cnn I saw today whilst at work. It was the candy ass with the bad ass's name (Wolf) they were bitching about how certain members of congress (does anybody remember what Congress is actually supposed to do?) were complaining about CNN airing a sniper's videotape. I'll provide the link at the end, but the Senator they had on (who was of course Republican) was a member of the house armed services committee. I'll provide a quote: "But the idea that in the invasion of Normandy, if Hitler sent us a film, sent CNN a film showing Americans going down under .50 caliber bullets on the -- on the beaches of Normandy or in Iowa Jima, the Imperial Government of Japan sending CNN images of American Marines -- 5,000 of them were killed at Iowa Jima -- going down under the impact of rounds as they hit that beach, or went out on Mount Suribachi would have been outrageous." OK, now first of all there was no comparison between Iwo Jima and Normandy. Overlord was massive in scale, and they were hit before they even got to the beach. Being a Marine I know this because it was ingrained in my head. Normandy was an amphibious landing to the gates of hell. Luckily, Hitler was more worried about Patton than everybody else. The landing of Iwo, by comparison, was relatively quiet. It wasn't until we hit the treeline that the shit literally hit the fan. Now, if I were a Congressman (never will be too honest) sitting on the House Armed Services committee, and I were slated to appear on the tube and I was going to mention a piece of military history....I'd fact check it first. Do a lil brush up. It kind of reminds me of when the Penguin was describing the stones at Arlington as crosses. lol now THAT was comedy.

We’ve never been stay the course.

2006-10-22T20:54:00.000-04:00

Dear Readers

2006-10-22T07:40:00.000-04:00

Elizabeth's column this morning, Leftist Belle: Leftist Belle Congratulates Herself On Her Humility over at the Blue Republic made me ask myself a question, "What kind of people read MCCS1977?" Well lets take a side by side look at visitors 11,743 and 11,774:

Click to enlarge.

On the left you have the good people at the USAAISC, out of Fort Huachuca. If you do a google search you'll see they are the source of many a conspiracy theory. They found my site through searching the terms "clinton gave land away to UN." Apparently, "iraqi bank mergers isx," will also catch their attention. As of right now I can find no official reference to them anywhere. Spooky. On the right was a visit from the Islamic Republic of Iran. This time the search term was "arcuri."

According to IMDB Manuela Arcuri's, "One of the most typically beautiful Italian girls, but also one of the last emerging Italian actresses especially in the fiction world, she became famous when she introduced the Sanremo Festival with Pippo Baudo, the king of Italian presenters." Ask Men.com says,

Honestly, there would be something really wrong with our heads if we didn't like Manuela Arcuri. An absolutely stunning Italian model and actress, Arcuri, with her great body and dark features, personifies the reason why Mediterranean women are so desired.

-Naughty, naughty, Imam. Wrong Arcuri. Anyways, it's surreal shit like this that makes blogging worth it.

100 Miles and Running His Mouth

2006-10-22T07:15:00.000-04:00

Gov. Draws Ire For Concentration Camp Joke LITTLE ROCK, Ark., Oct. 20, 2006(AP)

Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee drew criticism from a Jewish Democratic group Friday for jokingly crediting his 100-pound weight loss to a stay in a concentration camp. Huckabee, who is considering a run for president in 2008, made the comment Wednesday on Don Imus' radio show after the host told him he looked “emaciated.” “I have just come out of six weeks at a concentration camp held by the Democrat Party of Arkansas in an undisclosed location, making a hostage tape,” Huckabee said. “That's why I look that way.”

-He's no Joe Biden, but he's trying...

State of Denial

2006-10-21T11:32:00.000-04:00

So, I'm not even an eighth of the way through this book and I came across a haiku here it is: Rumsfeld is a dick Won't flow the forces we need We will be too light So, guess who said it, answer coming Monday.

Character Counts

2006-10-20T12:49:00.002-04:00

During National Character Counts Week, Bush Stumps for Philanderer

By Dana Milbank

Friday, October 20, 2006; Page A02

LA PLUME, Pa., Oct. 19

So it has come to this: Nineteen days before the midterm elections, President Bush flew here to champion the reelection of a congressman who last year settled a $5.5 million lawsuit alleging that he beat his mistress during a five-year affair.

Congresswoman on page board buried file on husband's child abuse allegation 10/19/2006 @ 12:56 pm Filed by Brian Beutler

A file allegedly suppressed by Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R-NM) has been obtained by RAW STORY. In 1995, just three days into her tenure as Secretary of the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department, Wilson removed a routine working file alleging that her husband had engaged in inappropriate contact with a minor. The file was then transferred to the department's attorney in her own Albuquerque office, where it soon went missing.

-Oh good lord, if they keep this up I'm going to piss my pants laughing!

Give em Hell, Jack!!!

2006-10-19T19:50:00.000-04:00

-If you're not watching CNN right now...you're missing a good one!

Sadly

2006-10-19T10:23:00.000-04:00

After confirming with Mike Arcuri's campaign staff, I hereby immediately drop all support of the Democratic nominee for the New York's 24th Congressional district based on his support for S.3930, the Military commission Act of 2006. How I plan to vote November 7th

Senator: Howie Hawkins, Green Party Governor: Elliot Spitzer (D) Congress: Mike Sylvia, Libertarian Party Attorney General: Andrew Cuomo (D)

Jack Off

2006-10-19T05:37:00.000-04:00

Via Media Matters:

In a January interview with freelance journalist A.L. Bardach, Mehlman described Abramoff as "someone who we don't know a lot about. We know what we read in the paper."

In the April issue of Vanity Fair, contributing editor David Margolick reported that documents obtained by Vanity Fair indicated that Mehlman had done political favors for Abramoff and even attended Sabbath dinner at the lobbyist's house. Margolick quoted Abramoff saying, "Any important Republican who comes out and says they didn't know me is almost certainly lying." The article also noted that a spokesperson for Mehlman responded that he "does not recall the e-mail exchange, 'because he was often contacted by political supporters with suggestions and ideas,' or the Sabbath dinner." RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt subsequently told Reuters that "Jack Abramoff is someone that the chairman has known in various capacities during his time in Washington."

A September 29 report by the House Committee on Government Reform found that "Abramoff and his colleagues billed their clients for more than 400 contacts with White House officials between 2001 and 2004," as The Washington Post reported. Included in the billing records were 17 contacts with the White House Office of Political Affairs, which Mehlman directed until 2004. The committee noted that Abramoff associate Tony Rudy had described Mehlman as a "rock star" in a November 9, 2001, email to Abramoff, after a meeting "regarding efforts to secure federal funds for the Mississippi Band of the Choctaw Indians." The report further noted that, according to a Department of Justice probe, one White House aide "kept Abramoff aware of information relevant to Guam ... at the behest of Ken Mehlman." In response to the committee's findings, Schmitt asserted that 'it was not unusual'' that Mehlman ''would be in contact with supporters who had interest in administration policy.''

An October 15 Los Angeles Times article reported that a string of emails from 2001 "suggest" that Mehlman had worked to remove State Department official Allen Stayman at Abramoff's request. The Times reported that the "e-mails show that Abramoff, whose client list included the Northern Mariana Islands, had long opposed Stayman's work advocating labor changes in that U.S. commonwealth, and considered what his lobbying team called the 'Stayman project' a high priority." In an email sent after a meeting with Mehlman, an Abramoff associate reportedly wrote, "Mehlman said he would get him fired." Shortly thereafter, Stayman lost his position in the State Department. According to the article, Mehlman conceded that he had known Abramoff since the mid-1990s, but "said he did not recall the details of his contacts with the Abramoff team."

-Remember, it's National Character Counts Week!

The writings on the wall

2006-10-18T22:45:00.000-04:00

The Worst Congress Ever

...and check out the accompanying article: 10 Worst Congressmen

-Did you catch Dawkins on last night's Colbert Report? Good stuff. Also reminds me I have a paper on The Book of Job (in which I'm using Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" as a source) due next week.

Wormtongue

2006-10-18T05:41:00.000-04:00

Salon.com's War Room by Tim Grieve:

In an interview with the editorial board of the Bucks County Courier Times, embattled Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has equated the war in Iraq with J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings." According to the paper, Santorum said that the United States has avoided terrorist attacks at home over the past five years because the "Eye of Mordor" has been focused on Iraq instead.

"As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else," Santorum said. "It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S. You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States."

-Crusader AXE of the Lost Causes was right! Hobbits! The Huffington Post's has their take, a wink and a nod goes to Think Progress.

Our world today

2006-10-17T18:07:00.000-04:00

Every morning I wake up and think that there is no way things can get worse in this country. Every day I am proven wrong. There is so much going on these days that it is hard to stay positive or even hopeful. Here is a rundown of some recent events:

A recent report published in the Lancet medical journal says that there have been approximately 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq as a result of our illegal war. Statisticians and mathematicians say that the math and the methods are sound. Critics say that math, and statistics in particular, is to blame. Basically, just some more ranting from the haters of academia.

Bush is incapable of implementing a foreign policy that is productive in making the world more peaceful. It seems that he may have reneged on a deal with North Korea just days after implementing it, provoking North Korea to react, according to Newsweek International.

However, Newsweek doesn’t think that Americans can “handle the truth”, so they have been publishing a dumbed-down version of their magazine in America while publishing more thought provoking articles in the International version.

And finally. The torture bill was signed into power today, Tuesday, October 17. There was no signing statement for this one. However, there was no need for one since the bill already gives the president the ability to go back and redefine terms and change policy that is written out in the bill anytime he pleases.

But, as long as we have a plan? for Iraq, everything is peachy-keen...right?

Amendment

2006-10-17T11:27:00.000-04:00

The Amendment to my previous post. I would beg the reader’s forgiveness for such a puerile tirade. I realize it lacked…direction. I had previously outlined what I desired to write about but had lost the damn notebook. So, now that it rests comfortably on my lap I will continue. I hope this essay will help much more than the previous had. In order to fight terrorism we must: 1. Cease selective foreign intervention. 2. Require international cooperation 3. Examine the phenomena 4. Adjust Ceasing our policy of selective foreign intervention is one of the main keys to success in this war. While this should be under the heading of “Adjust” it deserves a category of its’ own. In order to understand the situation we must take ourselves out of our comfortable shoes. We must think about why our own forefathers rebelled. They simply didn’t want to pay their taxes, and they did not want to be ruled by a foreign power. Now, would it not serve to reason that no one else would want to either? Regardless of what we are told the reasons for sending our children to kill and die are. Democracy, freedom, electricity, oil, whatever. It’s smoke and mirrors, and David Copperfield would be proud. Penn and Teller are taking notes on illusion from our government. If we are to stand as the voice of compassion, reason, and strength then one must conclude that these attributes’ entire basis is the strength of our own conviction. If we are a “moral” society, modeled upon the example of a man from the little village of Nazareth ask yourself why we have done the things we have. Why have we played politics with other people’s lives? With their countries? It can all be boiled down to two things, both equal in vice neither containing the virtue we so eloquently put forth in our own Declaration of Independence. Power and profit. International cooperation is another key to this fight. If another country tolerates the actions of a few against us, of which they wouldn’t tolerate on their own populace, it makes one pause and ask “Why”? It’s not because they hate our freedom. That is just childish to believe. Things in this world are not cut and dry, black and white. There are reasons for everything. The reason the IRA (Irish Republican Army) existed was because of a foreign power in control of what they considered their country. The very same thing we fought against. TALKING to them, and allowing for a dialog to occur resolved the situation. Clinton allowed issuance of a visa to the head of Sein Finn to the United States. Against the wishes of the Republicans, he did it anyway and….the IRA dropped their weapons!!! Holy shit. Terrorist organizations exist with goals in mind. Some (like Al Qaeda) have nothing but destruction on their minds. We must examine their motivations behind their actions. For example: If they claim that the US is an oppressive regime bent on total world domination, and their recruiting numbers continue to increase, then we are either being misinformed or we are doing something wrong overseas. Either way, “staying the course” is not an option. It’s more like banging your head against the wall and expecting to win the battle of cranium versus concrete. Not every terrorist organization in the world is after the US. Such organizations are much like the traditional populist parties of US history. Each has had a specific reason for existing. Once that reason is gone, then they’ve got no purpose and disappear. Destroy the root, and the tree falls. Since it would be a massive crime against humanity to destroy countries, we must then use ...Diplomacy. We’ve got to talk to everyone. This “I’m not gonna talk to you until you can share” bullshit foreign policy is cavalier and stupid. We have some of the smartest people on the planet, and THIS is our message to the world? No wonder Israel invaded Lebanon. THAT is where pre-emptive war policy brings you, a dead end literally. Finally we cannot allow our military forces to be bogged down with quagmires of nation building. That is a job for Peace Corps forces. Since our enemy uses unconventional tactics, so we must. If we do not adapt we will lose. You want cut and dry, there it is. This is not to say that we should begin training suicide bombers. Though the folks over at Jesus camp are planning for that very situation. This is a fluid battle. Our forces must be dynamic and not static. We cannot sit in one place to allow for the enemy to make plans of destruction. All warfare is based upon deception. My own Senior DI told me to show weakness when I’m at my strongest, and strength when I was weak. IE keep em guessing. The more they have to plan for the more intricate a plan becomes the easier it is to screw up. So their own plans may become muddied with detail. In conclusion, there are more things we must do like study the phenomena of why terrorists use the tactics they do. To my detractors, I’d ask you not to write in response to that statement “99 virgins… “I don’t care if you think you’re going to get a thousand virgins….you don’t strap a bomb to your ass unless there’s a good damn reason. You don’t just exit the Baskin Robbins, mint chocolate chip in hand and think…”Shit I’m late for my bombing” There’s reasons. We need to examine those reasons and eliminate what is within our control to eliminate. This alone would drastically reduce the numbers of recruiting. As though blowing up someone’s children would make them happy that they’re gaining freedom.

Crazy Moonie

2006-10-16T20:52:00.000-04:00

"Stop that man, he's made off with my tinfoil hat!"

FBI raids four homes, two offices in Weldon probe

By John Shiffman, Mitch Lipka and Patrick Kerkstra INQUIRER STAFF WRITERS

FBI agents investigating U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon (R., Pa.) conducted six raids this morning - including at the homes of his daughter and a longtime friend.

In all, agents executed four search warrants in the Philadelphia area and two in Jacksonville, Fla., officials said.

In Center City, agents searched the law office of John Gallagher, a Weldon friend who has conducted extensive business in Russia and former Soviet Republics.

In Media, agents searched the offices of the public relations firm formed by Weldon's longtime friend Charles P. Sexton Jr., and the congressman's daughter, Karen.

Sexton and Karen Weldon formed Solutions North America in 2002, and won $1 million in contracts from two Russian energy firms and a Serbian family with ties to Slobodan Milosevic.

FBI agents in Jacksonville, Fla., raided the office of one of the Russian energy firms, Itera, and a private residence whose connection to the investigation was not disclosed.

The Philadelphia raids began early this morning. Shortly before noon, FBI agents left Karen Weldon's three-story brick house on Queen Street in Philadelphia carrying armfuls of boxes.

-A little background music, perhaps? Try here, here, and here.

Please save me from myself...

2006-10-16T07:03:00.000-04:00

"...it started out a with regular night out on the town (paid for by lobbyists of course). They'd buy me, Delmonico, Porterhouse, T-Bone, Kansas City Strip, and then I moved on to the hard stuff, Chateaubriand, Filet Mignon, Tournedos... I was an addict. I...I couldn't stop myself."

-beefy

A way of life.

2006-10-15T22:44:00.001-04:00

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery - Charles Caleb Colton

There was a fever over the land. A fever of disgrace, of indignity, of hunger. We had a democracy, yes, but it was torn by elements within. Above all, there was fear. Fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors, and fear of ourselves. Only when you understand that - can you understand what Hitler meant to us. Because he said to us: 'Lift your heads! Be proud to be German! There are devils among us. Communists, Liberals, Jews, Gypsies! Once these devils will be destroyed, your misery will be destroyed.' It was the old, old story of the sacrifical lamb. What about those of us who knew better? We who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country! What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later.

-Hats of to Herr Katzen!

Cheetos and Yoohoo

2006-10-15T10:07:00.000-04:00

...and ribbons too:
-This is the best Bill Maher I've seen in some time... (H/T) Crooks and Liars

Fighting the War on Terror

2006-10-14T15:30:00.000-04:00

Author's note:

Amendable in the future when I have time.

All quotes should be considered paraphrases.

The idea behind such quote uses,

but not necessarily the quote itself or even it’s' author,

is the meat of that situation.

Since every "reason" for the invasion of Iraq has been exhausted, we are left with the question of what to do now? The common claim of our compatriots on the right side of the aisle is that liberals have no plan.
In addition to that we are called whiny, pansy-assed, tree huggers.
In truth I am a tree hugger, I thank them everyday for the vital role they play, for without trees WE WOULDN"T BE HERE.
...but I digress.
Onto the plan.
First of all what is proposed is an unconventional war. (The war on terror which incidentally cracks me up because every time a republican comes into the White House we find a new "war" to fight.)
Ok, since our enemy uses unconventional tactics, so must we. WE MUST BE ADAPTABLE. I think it was Sun Tzu that said that a plan that is unalterable is unworkable (paraphrase). This does not mean that we begin training a suicide squad. NO. First on the to-do list is to get the fuck out of IRAQ.
Call it cut n' run call it what you wish, I call it fighting this war correctly. Che Guevara wrote that "a guerilla does not have a flag; a guerilla doesn't have a shadow." This means that they don't wear uniforms, don't carry a guidon etc. OK we do. The Geneva Accord, from what I understand, is a compact between nations and their people. Nothing is said about rouge elements from within. For example: We aren't "supposed" to invade a nation because of what they could possibly do one day. Israel is supposed to be rebuked after X amount of UN violations, but when do we say when 100? 200? How about over three hundred? Don't get me wrong folks. The Hebrew is my brother just as are any other classification we've come up with to distinguish one from the other. Why people hate us is because of our selectivity when it comes to foreign intervention. When we have "gone in" it's always had some sort of banner behind it. Democracy, freedom, liberty, justice....et ralph. S.O.P. when they see an injustice that requires the attention of the United States and her superior warrior class, and we never come. One turns to the other in the smoke filled house and asks "Why"?
The inevitable response is thus: "We don't have anything they want."
This brings me to the next point in that our choices of foreign intervention need to be well defined. If we are to fight in the name of justice, let it be justice for everyone. Let is be true, and not selective for personal gain. Let it truly be "justice". We can no longer be relaxed because of our oceanic wall. We cannot be complacent. For make no mistake my friend. There are folks out there that do not want you to do X.
X is perfectly within your rights to do, in fact the precise word is... I believe.... Inalienable.
Instead of sending over bombs, and toe poppers, and Hellfires--all things of destruction--why not try this. It's much cheaper, more beneficial for all, and it ain't half bad.
Hold an "open house" (lack of a better term) at the United Nations.
***see I always thought of the UN in terms of a curse. The curse only has power if one believes that it does. Likewise if the superpower holds no faith, no money, and no effort into this organization....then what is expected of these smaller and deranged nations?
Back to the open house. We take applications for an entire year. Whichever nation asks, we will build a water well there. SMACK in the middle of the Gobi????
Not a problem.
In Minnesota??? uhm...no.
You get the point. The land within say...fifty miles is international territory. If it or its' users are screwed with within those zones....international ass-whip session. We could send them to Siberia...or better yet Arkansas. (Sorry the mental picture is cracking me up)
"We dunt layk yerr kahnd roun heah!"
Enough, down to the tactics. I think there should be some sort of commission called to study the phenomenon of terrorism. I mean, for as far back as I can remember there was the IRA and they went on a trip once in a while to London. From which they never came back. It's not being done anymore. In the biggest foreign policy goof of his presidency Clinton actually talked to the guy. The British PM, and the leader of Sein Finn. It's over. Yeah the Cranberries Zombie? Yeah, it's over. So what happened? Did the fight leave the Irish? To quote the vernacular, "Sheeeeeit." If that happened one might wish to look to the sky one last time.
They were a terrorist organization. What I'm saying is that terrorist organizations have an agenda. If that agenda can be minimized by the use of ....food, then that weakness should be exploited. A guerilla (terrorist) needs the support of the local population to operate. If we take away that support...what are they left with? Long range long distance strikes, or attempts. Probably the last point (hopefully) I'll make is that we shouldn't be scared of an eventuality. I mean...fuck people you're going to die. The guy you saw today full of verve and vigor, he's gonna die. The twelve year old that bagged your groceries and has wet dreams about you in a sun dress ( ok that analogy was for the ladies, "lemme hear ya say!!) he's gonna die.
Get the fuck over it because while you're quibbling over your mortality your grandchildren will be cursing your cowardice for not doing your job in protecting the one thing you were handed that is worth dying for.
America is both a place and an idea. Too many have become attached to the location versus the thought of why they were there in the first place.
"Rebellion is in our blood..."
Robert Walker© (1975)
Namaste

-I could write forever and someday I may actually get to the point.

Join me on this lazy Friday...

2006-10-13T10:14:00.000-04:00

Merry run around Sailing up and down Looking for a shove in some direction Got it from the top It's nothing you can stop Lord, you know they made a fine connection

Click on the pic to hear one of my favorites...

He who will not economize will have to agonize.

2006-10-12T06:38:00.000-04:00

Mid-terms monday. Till then my only friends are: Akhenaten Adam and Eve Job and Joseph Plato and Socrates Aristotle Confucius Prince Rama and Prince Arjuna ...and no, it's not a philosphy course, it's World freaking Literature. Ya, no Gilgamesh, doesn't make sense to me either. My first paper is due soon afterward, so I may be scarce for awhile, tschüß

Bill of Right

2006-10-11T03:02:00.000-04:00

Olbermann lays out what it means to lose habeas corpus.

Poll this...

2006-10-10T14:56:00.001-04:00

(H/T) Sadly, No!

In response to Mr. Ugly American

2006-10-10T08:27:00.000-04:00

Mr. Ugly, I was pleasantly surprised to find your correspondence in my e-mail in box in reference to the comment I had left on your site. I accept your challenge, and will ask "the hard questions."

My first hard question is; Was this really a successful nuclear test?

Via TPM:

Jane's Defense Weekly, a premier source on this sort of thing, says that if the initial reports of a .55 kT (half a kiloton) blast are correct "it would suggest that the test had been a "pre- or post-detonation" event (ie a failure), as it had been anticipated that North Korea's first nuclear test would have a significantly higher yield."

I believe, in the wake of intelligence failures regarding Iraq's weapons capabilities, that we cannot jump to conclusions. I believe the people most effected by this have shown how important this is:

South Korean officials meanwhile said they believed North Korea tested a nuclear weapon as claimed, but presidential security adviser Song Min-soon said it would take about two weeks to determine if it had been successful.

That was, "what happened." The second and third hard questions also come right out of the Army After Action Review, "what went wrong," and, "what could we have done better?" Crooks & Liars with what went wrong: President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.

That's right, our Prez released $95m to North Korea, with no oversite. Sound familiar? So we are left with the last question, "what could we have done better?" There is only one answer. Sit down with the North Koreans in direct Bi-lateral talks. It is often said that there isn't anything America can't do when it puts its mind to it. I believe that applys here as well.

UPDATE:

What is left once diplomacy is eliminated?

Fall in Central New York

2006-10-09T19:41:00.000-04:00

...and in the picture of the day catagory: