Open Thread
Chat away...
Comments (326) «
Howdy, Cb. I left a trail of bread crumbs on the other thread.
of course, I give up and ost the story I was holding for a new thread and lo and behold we get a new one. :)
Liberal and Conservative once meant something but have gotten so overused, neither really has any value except in attacking opponents and rallying the base
If anyone disagrees with this statement please explain to me what one or both means (applying the labels to either parties won't do anything-notably because both labels apply to both parties ). Until someone can explain what either stands for beyond labels: i.e. policies-I know what candidates stand for, but liberals and conservatives have become ambigous labels, unless someone can convince me otherwise.
From bottom of last thread:
How does that work exactly? Does it necessarily follow that Prince George will bring the troops home? Or, will he make it look like the new Congress does not support the troops? This idea makes me uneasy.
****
Doesn't make me at all uneasy. We spent too much money already on this occupation. Where's the money from Iraqi oil that defrays the cost?
Basically it boils down to a simple fact - cut off the money and the military must change the strategy. Meaning they have to send troops home. They should start with the national guard who shouldn't have been sent there.
This was the only way to end the war in Vietnam days and it's still the only way to get the WH to respond.
What makes me more afraid is continuing to shell out the money while troops continue to die and our budget deficit grows to the point that we do collapse economically.
Do you realize that these lunatics from hell want as much as 130 billion additional taxpayer dollars? We simply can't say yes to that. I am not saying it should be 0 dollars because you can't take the troops out in one day but it should be considerably less money. Force them to plan on withdrawing troops within a year's time NOT increasing the levels (some neocons are now pushing for 50,000 more troops).
Let's take a stand already. Enough is enough.
Election Alters Trade Climate
By Peter S. Goodman
The Washington Post
Tuesday 14 November 2006
Democrats eye environmental, labor clauses.
As Democrats prepare to take control of Congress, incoming leaders are planning to insert labor and environmental protections into pending trade treaties and to demand that the Bush administration adopt similar measures in future pacts it negotiates, congressional aides and government officials said yesterday.
The Democrats plan to insert restrictive provisions into two pending trade deals with Peru and Colombia, measures that would limit duty-free access to the US market for goods made in those countries if factories are found to use child labor or deny workers the right to organize unions.
Republicans have historically opposed restrictive provisions in treaties as against the interests of US business and consumers. President Bush has already signed the Peru accord and is expected to sign the Colombia treaty this month. Democrats plan to take a similar approach to deals still being negotiated by the United States trade representative with South Korea, Malaysia and Panama, Capitol Hill aides said.
The new atmosphere surrounding trade issues was underscored last night as members of the House - breaking with Democratic and Republican leaders - voted to reject a normal trade relationship with Vietnam, following that country's accession to the World Trade Organization last week.
At the center of the new trade dynamic is the fate of the president's so-called fast-track trade authority - the administration's existing power to call for a simple up-or-down congressional vote on trade pacts without opening them for amendments. The administration's authority is set to expire at the end of June. Democratic leaders say they are inclined to renew it but only if labor and environmental provisions are included.
Yesterday, Sen. Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat in line to chair the Finance Committee, said any law reauthorizing the president's fast-track authority would have to "strengthen labor and environmental provisions in some way to win broader Democratic support."
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/111406LA.shtml
****
Take Bush's fast track authority away! The man is a tool of the corporatists. He is the enemy of all working people here and abrroad. We need to take powers away from Bush not continue to let him have them to abuse.
It would be difficult to deny that Liberal has, in recent years received a negative connotation with it . I think there are many reasons for this, but most notably the rise of Fox News "Fair and Balanced" "We Report, You Decide." I think a more accurate description [for Fox News] would be "we lie and mislead, can you tell the difference?"
Unfortunately, moderate is heading the way of liberal-negative connotation. The current political environment is at a time we we need moderates more than ever. If people stick to there sides and are unwilling to compromise, we will won't get anything done.
Bipartisanship should be seen as a strenght not a weakness. There are actually ways to use it to the Democrats advantage. That doesn't mean we give up and let Bush call the shots. I'm thinking along the lines of the stem-cell bill, not that specifically but that kind of thing. The Stem-Cell bill had support from both Democrats and Republicans. Bush veteod the bill, sadly there was enough of a wingnut element to prevent an override. Nevertheless, rather than putting the Democrats on the spot, it put Bush on the spot.
Posted by rjsnj on November 21, 2006 at 01:51 PM
No one wants this inane debaucle to end more than me, but what I was referring to was the inevitable spin of taking this step. We have to realize that everything the dems do will be spun the way the WH likes it.
correction: there wasn't enough rather than was enough when I talk about the failure of the stem-cell bill
From a link @ "Think Progress":
After delivering a speech at a leadership conference in Abu Dhabi, former President George Herbert Walker Bush was forced to defend his son from verbal attacks by the "hostile audience," on the same day that a new poll reveals that more Americans preferred the first Bush president.
'More popular' President Bush defends son from 'hostile audience'
On Iragi, SET A DAMN DATE, JUST SET A DATE AND END IT! It would seem that Iran and Seria are more will to make peace that this president!
Posted by L5678 on November 21, 2006 at 01:51 PM
I don't see them as "ambiguous" at all. Also, I don't believe that these monikkers mean the same to each person. For me, Liberal means that you value freedom, peace, fairness, helping the needy and protecting the environment--to name just a few values, and not in any particular order.
On the other hand, Conservative to me means that you value individual prosperity, protection of wealth, world dominance, religious dominance, majority rule, isolationism, and the second amendment, as some have interpreted it and to the exclusion of all other amendments.
Unfortunately, with today's talking vitriolic heads, they would spin the ultimate liberal, Jesus, into a communist.
Posted by DPD on November 20, 2006 at 10:00 PM
As much as I abhor the draft, I whole heartedly agree with DPD. All Republican sons and daughters get drafted to serve in both Irag and Afghanistan. They should be removed from the protection of college and universities. They should take the place of all soldiers there now and let them see what kind of carnage their parents have created. Personally, I hate the draft. But in this instance, all the college and university students should trade places with our soldiers that are getting killed ever day. I think we should start with the Bush daughters instead of spending their time buying land in Paraguay. In addition, all the Republican lawyers in this land should send their children. These republican lawyers stip up for Bush and think he's doing an excellent job. NOT.
On Iragi, SET A DAMN DATE, JUST SET A DATE AND END IT! It would seem that Iran and Seria are more will to make peace that this president!
****
Bush won't do that! As the commander-in-chief (heavens help us!) he is the only one who can do that. What Congress can do is limit the funding. One possibility is that they fund this current level of troops for one year and one year only and decide to cut the money by 50% each succeeding year. That will force Bush's hand.
In addition, all the Republican lawyers in this land should send their children.
****
How about putting them in the front lines along with commander Bush and Cheney? LOL
Posted by L5678 on November 21, 2006 at 01:51 PM
Was lurking and saw this question, would like to take a shot at it if you don't mind:
The impact of liberalism on the modern world is profound. The ideas of individual liberties, personal dignity, free expression, religious tolerance, private property, universal human rights, transparency of government, limitations on government power, popular sovereignty, national self-determination, privacy, "enlightened" and "rational" policy, the rule of law, fundamental equality, a free market economy, and free trade were all radical notions some 250 years ago. (from wiki)
Posted by BlueinIdaho on November 21, 2006 at 02:24 PM
Howdy, blue, I just heard that Sali was elected "President of the Republican Class of the 110th Congress". First Lott, then Boehner, now Sali. Boy the Pugs are really doing some bridge building to the future.
Posted by rjsnj on November 21, 2006 at 02:37 PM
Ahem...so why are we targeting just the pug lawyers? Why not the pug doctors, teachers, bankers, athletes, actors and just plain lollygaggers? We are the party of fairness, after all...
How come there hasn't been a topic thread posted recently? The closest thing was the open thread on Sunday, but really not since Friday has there been anything substantial.
Are we just on our own now that the election is over?
Don't forget all the Pug blogs, like RedState, Ace of Spades, Little Green Footballs. You know, the entire 101st Keyboard Kommandos. (Or, as I have heard them also referred to: The 82nd Chairborne).
Empty out the entire Young Republicans clubs. They already have the phone numbers of these cowards, so it will be easy to track them down, and since they are so "Gung Ho" they will be easy to train into lean mean fighting machines.
Jared, I'm wondering if folks are on vacation this week. I do think that these guys deserve a bit of a break considering the long hours they put in.
Posted by DPD on November 21, 2006 at 02:40 PM
Oh, you've got to be kidding me. This disgusting sloth of a man will be the class clown before he's president of any class. Yuck!
82nd chairborne...lol
I saw President Bill Clinton on the Ellen DeGeneres show. He was great as always...
Ellen asked if Hillary will run and if He thinks America is ready for a woman President.
Elegantly, He responded that she has not yet decided and added that in 1988 He thought of himself as a smart politician but decided not to run because He did not think he was mature and experienced enough. A valid point, which brings me to what I hear in the background.
The issue of experience and maturity as it relates to the possible candidacy of Barack Obama.
Although voting for Hillary would mean that we would have Bill Clinton again in the White House, and I like the possibilities thereof, I say that I, in the primary will vote for Barack Obama if He decides to get in the race.
Neither Reagan, nor George Bush had that much experience either. We saw and still live today, the results of their lack of moral and intellectual judgement.
The issue of experience and maturity sounds to me like the 2004 theme that successfully derailed the election of Howard Dean.
Run Obama run...!
Partnership for Civil Justice settles landmark lawsuit against DC police
Washington, D.C.The Partnership for Civil Justice announced today a settlement of its landmark lawsuit against the District of Columbia and the Metropolitan Police Department that arose in connection with the demonstrations against the 2001 inauguration of George W Bush. As a consequence of this federal court litigation, the MPD will now undertake significant changes in its police practices and training programs with regard to demonstrations.
As one of those thousands who were threatened and mistreated, I celebrate today with another donation to the Partnership for Civil Justice.
It's time to cut Frosty off at the knees people. I don't care how you do it but you need to do it in order to keep the rest of the good people of this board moving in the right direction. He's causing way too much tension.Posted by Marine on November 21, 2006 at 09:33 AM
Verily.
I said this two years ago and basically swore off this blog for months because no one would attempt to ignore him and the DNC refuses to make the change that would be needed to ban anyone effectively.
Olivia, Lincoln served 1 term in Congress, and lost re-election. On the other hand, Franklin Pierce(George Bush's ancestor) was a State Representative, State Senator, U.S. Senator, and Attorney General nominee (which he turned down), before becoming President.
James Buchanan was Chairman of the House Judiciary Commitee, U.S. Senator, Ambassador to Russia, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State, Ambassador to England, before becoming President.
Until the Chimp and his father showed up, these 2 were considered our worst Presidents, and Linclon is considered one of the top 2.
I'd rather have a trained seal than ANY Republican at this point.
Why don't we hold a public "trial" for Frosty/Steve. Charge him with being stupid/ignorant/dumb/an idiot/incorrigible and a fake mensa. Hold a brief trial. If he is convicted by his peers (us) then his character is officially deleted and he is no more. Any attempt on his part to return would be considered contempt and the blog master would be impowered (demanded) to rid us of his character.
Confront and close.
Who is going to represent Frosty, and who will persecute?
Ahem...so why are we targeting just the pug lawyers? Why not the pug doctors, teachers, bankers, athletes, actors and just plain lollygaggers? We are the party of fairness, after all...
Posted by BlueinIdaho on November 21, 2006 at 02:42 PM
I agree with you Blue, but the politicians are a good start.
Hey, all the Windy City bloggers are here at the same time. So, without further ado:
John Edwards will be here:
(snip from an e-mail)
Chicago Public Library
400 South State Street
Chicago, Illinois
Tuesday, November 28 at 12:30 p.m.
Anderson's Books
123 W. Jefferson Place
Naperville, Illinois
Tuesday, November 28 at 7:00 p.m.
We’ll have a digital camera set up if you'd like to have your picture taken with me. Later, you can download your picture at www.myphotowithjohn.com. And please visit www.shareyourhomestory.com to share your own memories of home.
I'm looking forward to seeing old friends in Chicago and Naperville and meeting some new ones. Please stop by and bring your family and friends.
~~~~~~
Be There, Aloha.
Far Too Many Close Races in American Politics! Especially in Florida and Ohio
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001253.html?referrer=email
We should make sure every race is appealed, recounted, and protested in court.
This cannot be allowed to continue in a democracy.
From what I have seen of Frosty, he gets his rocks off by causing tension and acrimony. He must wet himself everytime he's cursed at. Be that as it may, perhaps if we "killed him with kindness" he would lose interest and find another blog to infect. When he is here, tell him you will pray for his soul---that ought to send him packing.
Posted by DPD on November 21, 2006 at 03:49 PM
I got that email too, and I think that my wife and I just might be there, although I don't really care to have my picture taken with anyone. I would love to meet him. It was nice to meet Dick Durbin.
Also, it is good to hear that Tammy has gotten herself an important job. I am sure she will do it well.
Who are the other Windy City Bloggers?
DPD, thanks, I'm guessing that is a post about Sali---it's blocked for me.....
Maybe this wouldn't have happened if Bush weren't so afraid to actually meet the people. When I was in Detroit a few years ago his motorcade TORE through the streets at about 60 mph just to get him out of there.
Yeah, it's about Sali. I'll Cut & Paste some of the good parts:
(snip)
Earlier that day, freshman Rep.-elect Bill Sali, R-Idaho, showed up a day early and in the wrong place -- the Democratic Caucus meeting. Sali, a goateed, conservative state legislator whose reputation for political combat preceded him to Washington, said he was following the schedule provided to him by the House Administration Committee, and so headed to room 345 in the Cannon House Office Building after attending a prayer breakfast. "They'd been very good until then," Sali said of the committee. The committee couldn't confirm the mix-up.
A spokesman for the Democratic Caucus said Sali didn't gain access to the room but was treated cordially. "What's the word ... he was pleasantly redirected," said a Caucus spokesperson. It must have been in a general direction. "I asked the Democrats where the Republicans were meeting, and they didn't know," Sali said.
Thanks DPD. I'll be collecting the flubs, flops and general stooopidness of this man for use in 08.
Congress is going to need to take more drastic measures if Bush and Co. are unwilling to make serious changes to their Iraq war plans. The three simplistic options are just not enough after and neither is the introduction of a new Secretary of Defense. Some consequences we've taken off the table may need to go back on the table. Perhaps the fear of impeachment will whip these slackers into shape.
Wish I could edit my comments sometimes.
Ignore that misplaced 'after'.
Why don't we hold a public "trial" for Frosty/Steve. Charge him with being stupid/ignorant/dumb/an idiot/incorrigible and a fake mensa. Hold a brief trial. If he is convicted by his peers (us) then his character is officially deleted and he is no more. Any attempt on his part to return would be considered contempt and the blog master would be impowered (demanded) to rid us of his character.
Confront and close.
Posted by salutetheDems
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones
I don't agree with Frosty, but Frosty has a right to post whatever he sees fit-as far as I know there is no requirement that the postings adhere to any kind of ideology. As far as the allegation of being ignorant that's the pot calling the kettle black.
Many on this board label anyone who doesn't agree with them ignorant and stupid, rather than use a logical rebuttal or simply face up to the fact that not everyone agrees with you.
Be that as it may, perhaps if we "killed him with kindness" he would lose interest and find another blog to infect. When he is here, tell him you will pray for his soul---that ought to send him packing.
Posted by BlueinIdaho on November 21, 2006 at 04:03 PM
He doesn't attack me. And I'm one of those fat chicks he thinks Clinton adores.
Nor me, Esme. But he does waste a lot of otherwise useable space on this board and kills intelligent commentary. And, personally, I think he needs his soul saved. :)
Many on this board label anyone who doesn't agree with them ignorant and stupid, rather than use a logical rebuttal or simply face up to the fact that not everyone agrees with you.
This is not the case with Frosty, L5678. Frosty is polite and has his opinions, which he shares, but it is obvious that there is no positive intent behind his posts. He also ignores information shared with him in order to continue with his disruption.
Now I enjoy a good argument with people who do not agree with me and provide supporting material. Often I am swayed by a well supported argument. These are not arguments however, these are instead simple disruptions.
Posted by L5678 on November 21, 2006 at 04:40 PM
elnumero, anyone here to do honest debate is given ample room and latitude. People here ot disrupt and infuriate are disdained. Which are you?
Frosted flakes is not alway polite and in fact has been downright rude and insulting many times. He has nothing of value to offer and should always and completley be ignored.
Posted by L5678 on November 21, 2006 at 04:40 PM
Ok come on already. Do you really think that Frosty provides insightful and productive debate? Nobody here wants anyone booted from the site just because they disagree. If you have been around here long enough you would know that Frosty is a special case. I think it is really a display of the collective lack of our self restraint that he has been here for so long to begin with. However, I am at fault as much as anyone else, and I agree with Esmeralda, they only person who Frosty attacks personally is Benji---I kind of miss their juvenile fights.
Besides all that, a trial would be fun, although it wouldn't get rid of Frosty--he is in the system, like the Matrix. He will always be haunting this blog--it is his life. If we really wanted to get rid of him, we would have to all ignore him, which at times we all screw up.
However, it might be fun to have the first blogosphere trial by peers, don't you think?
I am no lawyer, but I think it would be fun to see Frosty argue his case for staying, and explaining why he keeps coming back.
Disruptive individuals are not interested in learning anything from anyone. They've got everything figured out for themselves before they engage in any discussion and advance with only one interest, to say what they have to say. Most of us are not like this. Yes we have our opinions, but we don't ignore evidence provided by another in order to continue on our own course. Instead we confront evidence and break it down if we can, if we can't then we adjust.
Hey Dems,
I think we may just have been duped by Frosty into talking about Frosty. Me thinks L5678 just may be Frosty's alterior personality.
Wow, we all fell for it hook line and sinker.
Oh well, I am off to New Jersey to visit relatives for the holiday.
Everyone have a safe and fun thanksgiving, this year Dems finally have something to be thankful for.
Happy Turkey day!!!
Posted by salutetheDems on November 21, 2006 at 03:42 PM
Why don't we do what we are asked to do and ignore him completely.
He is easily ignored.
I stand corrected, thank for setting the records straight Christopher.
Frosted flakes is not alway polite and in fact has been downright rude and insulting many times.
Posted by Christopher_blunt on November 21, 2006 at 04:51 PM
The same could be said for many of the posters on this blog. For instance anyone who says they are against impeaching President Bush, even if on the grounds it won't help and will ultimately setback the Democratic Party will receive ad hominem attacks from those who support impeaching.
Posted by Marine on November 21, 2006 at 04:56 PM
Maybe we could make it more like a senatorial committee investigation, where we all get to take turns. Fade and Esemeralda could serve as the moderators. Something to think about.
My tounge was firmly in cheek when I posted the 3:42PM ...but...Lnumber has made a serious thing. He has called me a name I reserve for Frosty. Watch'it Lnumbo.
Posted by L5678 on November 21, 2006 at 05:00 PM
I nominate you for the job of defending Frosty, who seconds?
Unfortunately, as long as some of the people here will talk to Steve he will continue.
If you have not been a victim of one of his ad hominem attacks, you won't give a damn. I simply cannot stand by and ignore his actions at times. When he gets really out of line, I email the DNC. Occasionally, they respond.
Thank God, this is still a free country, but I can not respect someone who ignores this type of offense or encourages it.
elnumero, anyone here to do honest debate is given ample room and latitude. People here ot disrupt and infuriate are disdained. Which are you?
Posted by salutetheDems
You're trying to make it a black and white issue, when it's neither. Indeed their is honest debate, and those such as Frosty can be a problem. But there are also Democrats who d use ad-hominem attacks against those who disagree with them-see impeachment of President Bush: those who aren't in favor of impeaching, even if they are Democrats, can look foward to being hit with some ad-hominem attacks by those Democrats who won't see it any other way than impeachment.
It's rather subjective when it's meaningful or not meaningful.
I find little difficulty in scrolling past frosty's posts. The moderators can delete frosty's posts at any time. Those who take frosty's bait and engage him, deserve the natural consequenses. Looks to me like many on the blog find him entertaining, even if he is a pig headed conservative. ;-)
ranger, if we did it like a true Senate hearing, nobody would be sworn in, and all requested documents would be conveniently forgotten. Then all the Pugs will go out for drinks with the witnesses, and all will be forgiven.
Have a safe trip. Avoid O'Hare.
I understand your suggestion and thinking, Denim, but can't help but notice that it has never come to fruition in the years that the individual has frequented this site. Knowing that fact I find it foolish to look forward with the belief that such a thing is yet to come true.
This is kind of, not exactly but kind of, like George Bush and company suggesting that their approach to terrorism will eventually yeild positive results, when it is well supported fact that just the opposite has occured.
Posted by Paul on November 21, 2006 at 05:03 PM
good thing I haven't worried about whether I have your respect or not.
I will continue to just ignore and realize that the esculation is generally in direct relationship to those that respond to him.
It really sucks, doesn't it? Terrorist recruitment and attacks across the Middle East have been on the rise for several years and don't appear to be showing any sign of slowing. It's obvious to me that they are content to fight our men and women in the Middle East, but I don't think that is why we haven't been forced to face another terrorist attack here at home. I mean look at the facts, terrorist attacks have continued in nations well outside the Middle East which make it quite clear that containment has not occured. In fact, we've done a worse job of containing terrorists than we were doing prior to 2001.
How is the mindset of these two Bushes different from frosty's mindset?
How is the mindset of these two Bushes different from frosty's mindset?
I'm a windy city blogger. Although I don't get much of a chance to blog.
Laura
I know, laura, so is Ranger, and you both posted back to back. That's why I put up that Edwards info.
How is the mindset of these two Bushes different from frosty's mindset?
First I'm not Frosty contrary to some claims, but that comparison by Denim is an example of ad-hominem when you can't or won't offer a rebuttal for those who disagree with you.
L5678, I don't think that you are Frosty, but that comment by Denim is not ad-hominem. There was logic and reason behind the comment. I'm not sure why you would assume that Denim was talking to you either.
DPD
As much as I want to go hear Edwards, I have to work that day and the republican firm will fire me if I go. I hope someone reports on it.
Laura
From denimblue's link "Bush defends Bush":
Bush said he was surprised by the audience's criticism of his son.
"He is working hard for peace. It takes a lot of guts to get up and tell a father about his son in those terms when I just told you the thing that matters in my heart is my family," he said. "How come everybody wants to come to the United States if the United States is so bad?"
Uh, IDIOT??? NOBODY is saying that the United States is bad, they are saying that YOUR DEMON SPAWN IS BAD. They don't hate the USA, they hate YOUR IDIOT SON.
That's the problem with these Pug sheep, they "think" that the little Prince IS the USA.
He's not, and the sooner he runs away to his Mengele-esque compound in South America, the better.
Sp the POS troll is back under a new persona ... what else is new!
Frosty by any other name. Looking to pick fights rather than post anything of value.
An example of an ad-hominem attack is simple name calling. A logical comparison of one individuals behavior to that of another is not.
Rumor has it that the bogus ISG will recommend more troops. Has a familar Rovian ring to it.
The Puggies lose big on the basis of the war. The populace is looking for troop withdrawals. What does Rove come up with it? Shove it your face tactics - let's increase the troops and spend even more money!
It's time to say to these spending increases. Forget about Rangel's "draft". Rangel is just distracting everyone with something he knows is a non-starter.
He is working hard for peace.
****
How's that Pappy? By starting unnecessary wars and hawking for even more wars. Doesn't sound like someone that wants peace.
Enough of these freaking Bush's! They are a disease and we need to get rid of them for good.
I say throw the Iraq Study Group's conclusion in the garbage. This group is dominated by neocons. Their conclusions are crap.
Let's convene our own group with people like Larry Korb from the Center for Amnerican Progress.
rjsnj, I don't see anyone willing to accept that the current approach has led to increased terrorism, especially in the Middle East. This is supported by the findings of our Pentagon and our intelligence agencies, and yet it is not acknowledged by our White House. If they wish to protect our nation from terrorism and protect our interests overseas, then they have got to acknowledge this fact and move to improve the situation that has clearly been complicated by an increased US presense in the region.
If they will not acknowledge even these simple facts then we must find them incompetent and unable to fulfill their obligation to America.
I don't see anyone willing to accept that the current approach has led to increased terrorism
****
marine, I agree that it isn't helping. I think Bush hand selected this Iraq Study Group to conclude that even more troops are needed. It's complete madness and the exact opposite of what the people voted for in 2006. That's why I think it is Rovian tactics. When you oppose Rove, his tactics is to shove in your face even harder.
We made no progress at all with the WH. Not only is there no bipartisanship but I see them getting even more entrenched in their ideology and stubborn. I just hope that the Democrats are not foolish enough to cooperate with Bush's ISG. It's not our group ... throw it out.
The reality of the situation is too obvious to the American people for Congress not to take action, even if it requires Democrats being seen as defeatists or what have you by people who already see them that way anyway.
If they will not acknowledge even these simple facts then we must find them incompetent and unable to fulfill their obligation to America.
****
marine,
We have a helluva of a problem with the people in power. They are arrogant beyond anything I ever seen in this nation. The ones in the WH don't think that the people of the nation matter at all and they can do whatever they want to do. It's already gone out of control.
The Dems have the next few years to try ti turn it around. Otherwise, I think we will see people taking it to the streets in a big way because the political process has failed them completely.
I hope it don't down to that. At any rate, I a ready to take it to the streets on January 27-29. I hope some of my fellow Dems will be there as well.
Iraqis Overwhelmingly Demand U.S. Troops Withdraw Within One Year
So much for that "stay the course, we'll stand down when they stand up, we will leave when they ask us to" crapola.
definition of mindset
My post was meant to stimulate the use of ones mind. I am pleased with the response, even if the question was not directly answered! And in addition, if one were to compare my mindset with my favorite Democrat President of the past, I would feel complimented rather than attacked.
even if it requires Democrats being seen as defeatists
****
marine, I think the real defeatists are those who say we have to stay in Iraq even though they know it isn't winnable. This attitude reminds of the people who lied about winning in Vietnam when they knew it was an impossible situation. The French didn't succeed in that country with an occupation that lasted 20 years, what made the United States think it could succeed? The same goes for Iraq. The British couldn't occupy and run it.
It's time to have courage and try another approach. If that means playing nice with the nations around Iraq then so be it. Stability is what counts.
Let's forget about trying to impose a Democracy in Iraq and start worrying about our own rapidly eroding Democracy.
There are thousands of men and women out there who understand this struggle against terrorism from having engaged in the process for decades. These individuals know the problem for what it is and have never confused terrorism's use of religion for purposes of moral and recruitment. These individuals have watched in horror as those who did not understand or take part in the process prior to 2001 stepped in and quickly undid all the progress that had been made.
The group that took over in 2001 was led mainly by ideological beliefs. They also relied upon traditional understanding of combat in establishing a future course of action, something that no competent military leader would consider appropriate.
War is never won through traditional means. It requires the constant adaptation of tactics and strategies to suit the environment. This war, for example, is not fought against a nation as most previous wars have been fought. That fact prevents the use of traditional warfighting practices designed to engage an enemy clearly defined in terms of ethnicity or nationality.
Taking such a war to the nations within which these individuals gather their support is counterproductive because it puts those nations on the defensive. Once those nations are on the defensive it is a small leap to offensive and supportive of terrorism.
So much for that "stay the course, we'll stand down when they stand up, we will leave when they ask us to" crapola.
****
Let's be real careful DPD about the next few months. These madmen think they can make one more big push and win it. They never learn even when rebuked by the people. Increasing troop levels, throwing more money at the problem isn't going to fix it. That's just going to dig us in even deeper and damage our nation even further.
In the laws that would be great if passed, but will never happen department, campaign finance laws that actually reduce the influence of special interests and money
As it stands right now, the current laws place limits on how much donors can contribute, but no limits as to how much can be spent. That means that instead of spending less, parties and candidates are simply spending more time fundraising.
To actually reduce the influence of money and level the playing field limits on how much could be spent would have to be implemented, but you know how well that would go over with say those who happen to be wealthy enough to finance their own campaign.
An actual cap on spending would almost have to be in the form of constitutional amendment. The reason being that the Supreme Court has said the campaign and political contributions are a form of free-speech, but at the same time has upheld limits on how much can be contributed by individuals
To actually reduce the influence of money and level the playing field limits on how much could be spent would have to be implemented, but you know how well that would go over with say those who happen to be wealthy enough to finance their own campaign.
****
I think the ultimate answer is public financing of campaigns. That means that a small percentage of your taxes is set aside for campaigns and the money is given to the candidate to use.
What wioll that mean?
1) Shorter campaigns! In the UK, where they have public financing, campaigns last around 4-6 weeks. If a politician can't make their point in 4-6 weeks then they just don;t have a point. Okay, maybe in the US they would need 12 weeks because it's a bigger country.
2) Less TV commercials. Thank Gawd!
3) Politicians have to get to point rather than attack each other. Can you just imagine it!
Posted by rjsnj on November 21, 2006 at 06:29 PM
How do you get Joe America's attention? He's to busy watching Emmett do the Samba. Here in Idaho we have the great opportunity to get up close and personal with our candidates and so few take the offer. Even with Americans dying each day in Iraq, people are just so damn apathetic, it kills me.
Oh, delightful. In another example of Bushco blowing smoke all along, CBS just reported that of the 140,000 American troops in Iraq, only 5,000 have been assigned to train them to "stand up", and even the trainers haven't been fully trained to DO THE TRAINING!!
They are just shuffling cannon fodder in and out of that Hell Hole.
It's been nothing but a P.R. slogan all along.
I think the ultimate answer is public financing of campaigns. That means that a small percentage of your taxes is set aside for campaigns and the money is given to the candidate to use.
What wioll that mean?
1) Shorter campaigns! In the UK, where they have public financing, campaigns last around 4-6 weeks. If a politician can't make their point in 4-6 weeks then they just don;t have a point. Okay, maybe in the US they would need 12 weeks because it's a bigger country.
2) Less TV commercials. Thank Gawd!
3) Politicians have to get to point rather than attack each other. Can you just imagine it!
Posted by rjsnj on November 21
I agree with your points. I think the two main issues would be giving the two main parties an incentive to use the public finance system here: e.g. better benefits, only option to finance, etc.
There are principled arguments to be made for a national primary or if nothing else a shorter election season. It's bad enough to have states competing to be the first-at the rate its going the presidential primaries will be starting the January following mid-election: e.g. primary in 2007.
There is no need to make it any more of a 3-ring circus than it already is. I would like to hear about what the candidates propose to do on issues than attack ads.
How do you get Joe America's attention? He's to busy watching Emmett do the Samba.
****
Emmett do the Samba - how pathetic!
I don't know blue. I read a very interesting article awhile back where the author analyzed social movements. The conclusion is that they generally occur in times of distress. The author concluded that entertainment is probably muting the distress many people feel. But, eventually it does get through. In some way, Rangel is right. If we had a draft, there would be more people feeling the distress and then there would be a larger movement to end it. Still, I hope it doesn;t come down to that.
In regard to the impeachment of Bush 41: Unfortunantly an impeachment would be all consuming. Total focus of congres, MSM, cable, etc. Huge WOT. (waste of time) More favorable would be INVESTIGATIONS. Bring out the rotton, corrupt, mendacious lead up to war, profiteering and bring some people to trial. Send some butts to jail for hard time. If the investigations lead to impeachment then so be it. Argument for or agains impeachment is incomplete without qualifications.
The important thing is that pressure is applied so that competent individuals can have a say in future military decisions.
If we did some investigations and made the testimony public maybe we would learn a little about why we have this protracted war. Maybe the old: "follow the money" would come back and we would see who profits from this. Carlyle has increased their portfolio from a measly $12B in 2001 to $44B last year. Guess what they mostly hold. Anyone know who owns the stock?
Anyone know who owns the stock?
****
Bush, Cheney ... in fact, Pappy Bush is on the board of directors. How's that for slimy? That'w why I have no respect for the ISG that is pushed by Pappy's buddy James Bakker.
Let's forget that group and convene our own commission. Now that the Dems have subpoeana power they can do that.
I agree we should find out why this occupation is so protracted. Exactly how is it possible that so few Iraqi are trained after years of training them? It doesn't add up!
Even with Americans dying each day in Iraq, people are just so damn apathetic, it kills me.
The apathy is indeed appalling. While apathy exists across the board, it seems to be most visible with young people. There are some energetic young people who really do care about politics, but unfortunatly they are in the minority. Apparently most people 18-25 are registered, so the problem isn't registration-get out the voting drives, and get out the vote efforts never hurt-it's motivation.
I can't figure out why motivation would be a problem. The Republican leadership has made it more difficult to afford college by increasing rates on student loans, healthcare costs are getting evermore worse (students are only going to be on their parents plan for so long) and Iraq gets worse by the day, yet for most people of this age it doesn't matter. For handful who are involved in politics those issues do matter, so it's not a fair characterization to say everyone but many people don't care. Heck, many people who are much older don't care. Why I don't know.
The same thing has happened in Afghanistan. Training local militaries has not been a priority in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Many of those who are selected to train these militaries have no combat experience of their own and many more belong to occupational fields not related to combat or police action. These individuals, with no more combat training than most locals, end up training individuals via Technical Manual.
There are principled arguments to be made for a national primary or if nothing else a shorter election season.
****
I think so. Look at British politics some day (if you haven't already!). You will be amazed at:
1) Their politicians are smart. They know the issues, they know the facts and are quick on their feet. Can you imagine that dunce Bush addressing direct questions from the Congress without someone whispering the answers in his ear? That's why he sucks at press interviews.
2) They don't waste alot of time on attack ads. They will attack their opponents policies and record but you don't see slime time tactics.
3) They take their message directlt to people rather than speaking sound bites in TV commercials. They are not afraid of televised town hall meetings for example.
I know it's a smaller country but even at the local level our politicians often hide behind empty slogans and won't come out to meet people.
Fred, it is the lack of timely results that turn most people off. These people see what should be done and simply stop being interested after waiting month after month and year after year for something to be done. What they see is a bunch of mouths moving their lips and nothing actually being accomplished.
If we pull out of Iraq AND starting a draft for the Army, would it be the best way to deter Iran and North Korea?
Right now, I fear they think we are too weak to stand up to them, and they may be right. I always thought the best thing a very strong military can do is to stop a war before it begins by making our enemies think twice before they mess with us. I remember that our former Democrat senator Sam Nunn believed in that.
Also, do any of you see a way to "win" Iraq short of destroying Iraq? And should we win by those means? Clearly, Dubya's "stay-the-course" ain't working.
If we pull out, will we have to fight Iran? If so, shouldn't we redeploy our Army to Afghanistan to have troops ready? If so, do we have enough men and logistical help to accomplish our mission?
If we have to fight someone else, will Dubya and Cheney make sure to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory?
I think all Americans should demand sensible answers to these questions from our leaders before we decide 2007's strategy for Iraq.
Anyone know who owns the stock?
Posted by salutetheDems on November 21, 2006 at 06:54 PM
Also, do any of you see a way to "win" Iraq short of destroying Iraq?
****
What a horrible thought! If we did that, the United States would be regarded the biggest barbarians in the history of humanity. It's a non-starter.
I think it's time to declare victory and move on.
The fate of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people not the American people.
Posted by rjsnj on November 21, 2006 at 07:05 PM
While a parliamentry system isn't perfect, notably that it is unitary not bicameral, representation is for the most part better given it's proportional representation, as opposed to the winner take all system we have here.
If there was some way to take the checks and balances of United States system and mix those with a proportional representation system like the parliamentary systems have, we might just come out with a perfect system-minority representation and checks and balances
I as much as anyone would like to see President Bush go on something like question time as opposed to having a former high up of Fox News do it for him.
To make a move towards a parliamentary system or even proportional representation would require rewriting the entire consitution (except for the bill of rights and amendments 11-27), so I have my doubts as to how politically viable it is.
Fade and Esemeralda could serve as the moderators. Something to think about.
Posted by ranger995 on November 21, 2006 at 05:00 PM
Oh no thank you! Sometimes I enjoy the running amuck. It reminds me of my dysfunctional exmarriage. Which in turn has me singing praises that I'm in a normal, loving relationship now.
And as much as I love bluzy, she goes apeshit ballistic at times.
Nope, we need a level head. Someone who can't be bothered by the trolls and has quick reflexes to zap 'em gone. I nominate HillWilliam. ;)
These individuals, with no more combat training than most locals, end up training individuals via Technical Manual.
***
Geez, that's insane. This is the sort of thing that we need to investigate. It just doesn't add up that it takes so long to train troops. This also tells me that increasing the number of American troops will solve nothing because they will be inexperienced themselves.
I as much as anyone would like to see President Bush go on something like question time as opposed to having a former high up of Fox News do it for him.
****
The comedy value would be incredible. But, to be honest, I think very few American politicians would do well in the British confrontational system. Just look at how they debate each other in our Congress - generally, it's not face to face and more often than not it speeches made to empty chairs! The Brits get in each other's face - now that's politics! You have to be smart, agile and know your stuff to survive in that system.
Shucks, just some good ol' boys makin' money
****
Tee, Hee, Hee!
Yep, you got the general drift. I also read somewhere that Tony Blair will be on the board of directors. His reward for helping to fix the intelligence around the policy ... maybe, maybe ...
More proof that New England Republicans are in danger of taking up permanent residence at the margins comes this morning when a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives switches from Republican to Democrat. North Stonington Republican Diana Urban, elected to a fourth term two weeks ago, often voted with Democrats in the legislature. Her departure from the ranks of the GOP reduces their number to 44 of 151.
****
Interesting. There was quite a few switches in other states as well.
Many assumptions have been made up to this point. For instance, there is the assumption that both Syria and Iran want to fight the United States. Syria actually has worked with the United States on several occassions since 2001, think Maher Arar who was trasfered to Syria in 2002. He was actually a Canadian citizen and it was illegal for the United States to deport him to Syria without first notifying Canada.
The International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations have continually contradicted White House claims that evidence existed supporting the notion that Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapon capabilities. It is true that some Iranians support terrorists but it is also true that citizens of every Middle Eastern nation offer the same support. In any case it is impossible to rule out actual government assistance.
Iraq is bordered by Syria and Iran, and Iran is at this point one of the greatest powers in the Middle East. It is unrealistic to assume that these two nations will be forever prevented from engaging in relations with Iraq. Therefore, it is unrealistic to advance in Iraq without speaking with leaders of both nations.
Like it or not we all have an interest in what happens to Iraq and throughout the Middle East. Syria and Iran no more want the situation in Iraq to further destabilize than do we. Such an outcome would significantly reduce any influence these nations may hope to gain in providing assitance to their fellow Muslims.
Ideological and religious zealots not up to speed on the terrorist threat have perverted the present outlook on the situation. These individuals led an all out assault on any Muslim nation we were not fully engaged in relations with simply because they assumed that terrorists were holy warriors. They did not understand that calls for Jihad have been shunned by Middle Eastern society on countless occassions or that anyone placed under the right amount of pressure will fight. Bullying was their idea of a solution, because they didn't know what to do.
We need to talk with these people. When we do, if we don't wait until it is too late, that simple approach will lead to a reduction in terrorist recruitment. Hope of peace between our nation and theirs will lead many Muslims, who may otherwise consider more drastic measures, to stop and listen to what transpires at a national level instead. Remember, terrorists have banded together under no national flag to fight foreign influence that they see as immoral. This isn't a group organized by any one Middle Eastern nation.
Posted by Paul on November 21, 2006 at 05:03 PM
Paul,
It doesn't matter if you talk to him or not, or even talk about him. He reads the posts here and will comment on those he chooses. We all could ignore him and he would still post.
And since you aren't me, you have no idea if I am bothered by his attacking others here that I do care about. If there is one thing I really dislike, it's people telling me how I feel and what I think. They might not agree with me, that's their choice. Framing me is not an option.
Personally, I think everyone should develop a thicker skin to take his "crap" and that the mods should get rid of his posts ASAP.
I don't recall Steve posting on any other thread but the open one. I could be wrong though. I can't remember everything that has been posted for over 3 years.
I cringe when I read the word "retard" in name calling. I spoke my mind about it in real time to the poster, but that hasn't stopped the name calling. I haven't found it in my heart, because the feeling is not there, to repeat myself or lose any respect for that poster. (I hope when she reads this later she understands that I'm not making a cheap shot in her absence. I won't be online when she is here later or in the morning either)
If you really want to get to Steve, post a prayer, a honest to goodness sincere prayer, that he will be blessed. And feel in your heart & soul that you want him to really be blessed. It makes me feel so much better when I send up a message about those who wish me ill.
Free will and all that jazz. You do as you please.
I wish you & your family a very Happy Thanksgiving.
Many assumptions have been made up to this point. For instance, there is the assumption that both Syria and Iran want to fight the United States.
****
marine, the Iranians very quietly helped the United States oust the Taliban! People assume that Iran is bent on fighting us. They are wrong.
The Iranians have grievances against us for overhrowing their democratic government in favor of the tyranical Shah. We have grievances against Iran from the hostages they took. But, there is a large group of Iranians who genuinely like Western culture and don't see the United States as their enemy.
Yes, they want nuclear energy - they see it as modernization and national pride.
Yes, there may be some in their government that want a nuclear bomb as protection from the neocons.
Yes, some Iranians are hostile towards Israel over the Palestians.
But, by and large, the neocons are whipping up a frenzy over nothing.
I don't think that anyone wants to get back at or attack Frosty. It sounds to me as they these people just want him gone. The disruptions are annoying and obviously interupt what would otherwise be intelligent discussion. Look at us, we're talking about him.
Not that I own it, that would just be crazy, but that I share your understanding of the matter.
Fox News is gonna do a "Dailey Show" type show without the liberal slant.
****
Funny, I always thought the Faux News channel was a Daily Show without a liberal slant!
Josh and others are starting to look into the career of Alcee Hastings who is on the short list to lead the House Intelligence Committee.
The issue is not Hastings' intelligence credentials but the end to his (short) career as judge almost 30 years ago.
A jury acquitted Hastings of criminal charges stemming from the (bribery) scandal, but in 1989 a team of lawmakers -- including Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), among others -- prosecuted Hastings in Congress, and the Senate voted to strip him of his judgeship.
Hastings has never conceded any role in the (bribery) affair, insisting that Borders -- a well-known fundraiser for former president Jimmy Carter -- was acting alone, essentially running a con on wealthy defendants.
Harmon is listed here as a another possible choice and the supporters of each are outlined.
Good evening
Well I see that Frosty is still in the conversation for the day.
As for me I may comment that he is or has been around and that's pretty much the gist of it. But when he decides he should make deragatory remarks about African-Americans, I'm not going to let him get away with that crap. I tongue lash him professionally and firmly. I am not going to sit back and ignore his ethnic slurs because if he/she is let to continue, he/she will get bigger and bolder with each statement.
There was quite a few switches in other states as well.Posted by rjsnj on November 21, 2006
A republican voting often with the Democrats? Told you the terms liberal and conservative could apply to both parties. Party means something, but not everything. A candidate is the key thing.
Why I do believe you are correct, rjsnj. Faux News is indeed a daily show without a liberal slant.
But, by and large, the neocons are whipping up a frenzy over nothing.
Posted by rjsnj on November 21, 2006 at 07:45 PM
Neocons are well read when it comes to Hitler's technique of uniting "true believers" against a contrived enemy.
Posted by Marine on November 21, 2006 at 07:56 PM Why I do believe you are correct, rjsnj. Faux News is indeed a daily show without a liberal slant.
Truth has a liberal slant - that makes things hard for Fox.
Harmon is listed here as a another possible choice and the supporters of each are outlined.
****
I can't say I am in love with Jane Harmon but Alcee Hastings is troubling. I think if we are going to insist on an ethical government putting someone in charge of an important committee that has a checkered background isn't good.
Are there any other choices?
I myself find the so called conservatives currently in office to be more 'liberal' with their spending habits and corruption than 'conservative'.
Considering that Fox was going to run a show featuring OJ Simpson and consisting of how he would have killed his wife, something as simple as morals appears too hard for Faux News.
Posted by rjsnj on November 21, 2006 at 08:01 PM
Are there any other choices?
The article about Harmon lists another candidate who's name I've forgotten.
The argument I've seen repeated most often against Hastings is the "perception" argument. Whether or not he was actually guilty, whether or not he's "reformed", it doesn't matter for a House Intelligence Committee Chair
When it comes to matters of national security, the past appearance of possible corruption must be enough to dispose of any candidate. We are by no means despirate, which is what the appointment of an individual such as this would suggest.
I can't say I am in love with Jane Harmon but Alcee Hastings is troubling. I think if we are going to insist on an ethical government putting someone in charge of an important committee that has a checkered background isn't good.
Are there any other choices?
Posted by rjsnj on November 21, 2006 at 08:01 PM
For the sake of unity within the party Pelosi will probably have to find another candidate, BUT Hastings HAS paid his dues, most seniority on the committee with absolutely no difficulties or problems while serving on the Intelligence Committee. Because most folks are not able to step over his past problems as a federal judge which by the way was almost two decades ago she is not going to be able to give him the nod even though this is who she wants. Harmon definitely won't get it again because Pelosi has her on the dislike list.
The real problem will be with the Congressional Black Caucus. Nancy stepped over the seniority of Hastings and other caucus emmbers to give Harmon the go in the past and members of the Black Caucus were so upset they requested and got a sit down with Pelosi who promised not to overstep again those blacks that were in line for a committee position.
If she has to forego Hastings again .....
If I was carried away by the noble ideal of turning the Middle East into Midland; and if my dad blew it when he had his chance;
and if I knew that I was the instrument of the Almighty, who knew the Iraqis wanted to be free to blow other Iraqis to smithereens and chop off their heads;
and if I knew in my gut that we couldn't fail, because we're America; and if I didn't give a flying fig what a bunch of old-fart cut-and-runners thought;
and if a heap of people died as a result of my commitment to freedom (but they weren't freedom-lovers); and if I've driven the world nuts, and if some evildoers think the United States is something other than a beacon of freedom--
well, if I did any of that, and I'm not saying I did,
tough. I'm the decider and you're not, you get my drift?
The argument I've seen repeated most often against Hastings is the "perception" argument. Whether or not he was actually guilty, whether or not he's "reformed", it doesn't matter for a House Intelligence Committee Chair
Posted by dorsano on November 21, 2006 at 08:11 PM
Now the media and fellow House members want to know if the man is "reformed"? Well he has served on the Intelligence committee for a number of years and there has been no problem. And was he "guilty" due to his impeachment? Well unless someone's psychic or been to the mountaintop, that's something only he will know.
Good evening everyone!
DPD and all the windy city bloggers - I hope you have fun at the John Edwards event.
Take care and be safe.
Fox tried to do their own version of "60 Minutes", starring Geraldo and Bill-O. It FLOPPED big time.
75 Bodies Found;
Diplomatic Ties with Syria Bruited
Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that on Monday running street battles erupted in several districts of Baghdad between guerrillas and Iraqi police. In Salikh, the Bank district, Sumer, and Tujjar, residents were forced to flee their homes lest they be exposed to kidnapping or caught in the cross-fire. The fighting, mainly with small arms fire, began when guerrillas attacked a police checkpoint. Police attempted to close off the affected neighborhoods. They also closed Salikh Bridge, which is among the main point of access to Baghdad from northern provinces such as Diyala, Kirkuk and Sulaymaniyah. The closing created traffic jams and forced drivers to use an alternative route into the city.
Plus Reuters' report for Monday.
Posted by J on November 21, 2006 at 08:27 PM Now the media and fellow House members want to know if the man is "reformed"?
No, J. That was my word. I put it quotes because I knew it was the wrong word. :)
I don't even like "paid his dues" actually.
I guess I would say that his service over the 25+ years hasn't been enough to inoculate him yet.
I guess I would say that his service over the 25+ years hasn't been enough to inoculate him yet.
Posted by dorsano on November 21, 2006 at 08:36 PM
No, I guess his service hasn't been enough and the expedient thing will be for Pelosi to do is find another candidate.
Kinda falls in that category no matter what or how much you do, it's never going to be enough.
Dick Cheney: The Most Dangerous Man in the World
by Cenk Uygur
Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 06:20:53 AM PST
Seymour Hersh is reporting in The New Yorker that Dick Cheney is in the middle of advocating a military strike on Iran. This could start a war with no foreseeable end. The US versus the whole Muslim world. Is there anything more dangerous in the world? Osama bin Laden would love to start a war like this, but he doesn't have the capacity. Cheney does.
Cenk Uygur's diary :: ::
As Hersh and others point out, this is not a done deal. There are other forces inside the White House who are battling the Vice President over the tiny battleground that is George Bush's mind. But the fact that Cheney is waging this fight and would attack Iran if he had his way clearly makes him the most dangerous man on earth.
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the leader of Iran has no intention of attacking the United States. It would be suicide and he has showing nothing to indicate that he would take this step. But we are considering attacking him. If you thought the Iraq War went poorly, wait till you get a load of how badly the Iran War will go.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/21/91856/398
Dick Cheney is a dog with rabies. Frothing at the mouth and quite insane. I agree that another unwarranted attack would be the absolute end of the Republican party. Even though that would be fine with me, I would not want the Republicans to self destruct that way because of the permanent damage attacking Iran would create.
Personally, I think the Black Caucus and Hastings should remove his name from the short list of chair appointees and and take that little "bargaining chip" and hold it for a much needed time. There will be something that the Congressional Black Caucus will want and need Pelosi's power for at a later time.
Another Grim Milestone for Lebanon
Mr. Gemayel’s death is the latest in a string of killings that began with the death of a former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, in an explosion in February 2005. That event sparked immense street demonstrations and led to the formation of a coalition of anti-Syrian forces that included the main Sunni, Druze and Christian parties, including Mr. Hariri’s political-neophyte son, Saad Hariri.
The coalition, called the March 14 movement, swept into power after the withdrawal of the Syrian army. It has been struggling since then to retain control against the growing challenge from Hezbollah, especially after the summer conflict against Israel.
Breaking News,