My Teacher, My Hero
Posted by on January 19, 2007 at 11:06 AMAn Op/Ed in the New York Times this morning talks about the plight of teachers -- the one not seen on the silver screen.
From the article:
At the beginning of Ms. Swank's new movie, "Freedom Writers," her character, a teacher named Erin Gruwell, walks into her Long Beach, Calif., classroom, and the camera pans across the room to show us what we are supposed to believe is a terribly shabby learning environment. Any experienced educator will have already noted that not only does she have the right key to get into the room but, unlike the seventh-grade science teacher in my current school, she has a door to put the key into. The worst thing about Ms. Gruwell's classroom seems to be graffiti on the desks, and crooked blinds.The piece goes on to talk about the pressure placed on teachers -- they are called "incompetent and underqualified," and ignored when they ask for basic materials for their classrooms, or even a living wage for themselves. They are attacked over and over again while they try to do their job on the meager resources we've given them -- and don't even get me started on class sizes and special ed.I felt like shouting, Hey, at least you have blinds! My first classroom didn't, but it did have a family of pigeons living next to the window, whose pane was a cracked piece of plastic. During the winter, snowflakes blew in. The pigeons competed with the mice and cockroaches for the students' attention.
"Freedom Writers," like all teacher movies this side of "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie," is presented as a celebration of teaching, but its message is that poor students need only love, idealism and martyrdom.While we all want what's best for our kids, we need to make sure we're not attacking educators who want the same. To all my friends who are teachers -- you guys are my heroes.I won't argue the need for more of the first two, but I'm always surprised at how, once a Ms. Gruwell wins over a class with clowning, tears, rewards and motivational speeches, there is nothing those kids can't do. It is as if all the previously insurmountable obstacles students face could be erased by a 10-minute pep talk or a fancy dinner. This trivializes not only the difficulties many real students must overcome, but also the hard-earned skill and tireless effort real teachers must use to help those students succeed.
Comments - 25 »
Comments - 25 «
I can't feature Republican Light corporatist Hillary Clinton getting the Democratic Party nomination. WE THE PEOPLE should vote in the presidential nominee who gets the DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINATION since the Democratic Party nomination should be done by Governor Howard Dean, who will choose a nominee that he feels will actually represents all of the political left.
http://www.answers.com/topic/corporatism
http://www.answers.com/Benito%20Mussolini
Hillary Clinton may be able to win, but I can't see how she can win, if WE THE PEOPLE really understand what she is up to with the DLC Project For The New American Century. Hillary Clinton has no plans to help all of WE THE PEOPLE, only her class, which is 20% of the American people. All the rest of us, the 70% mass population who are WE THE PEOPLE, Hillary Clinton will not represent any more than George W. Bush represents the 70% MAJORITY.
Posted by _MarthaA on January 21, 2007 at 11:40 AM
You want to help teachers? What about subsidizing their student loans. So much off for every year they teach. There are teachers out there who are barely treading water because of their loan payments, especially if they go on to post-graduate degrees.
They are talking about knocking off $5,000 for every year for public defenders and prosecuting attorneys, aren't teachers worth at least that amount, if not more?
Posted by Butte on January 21, 2007 at 03:58 PM
"It is never right to do wrong or to requite wrong with wrong, or when we suffer evil to defend ourselves by doing evil in return." : Socrates 469 - 399 BC
=
Crime Against Peace: A basic provision of the Charter is that to plan, prepare, initiate or wage a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances, or to conspire or participate in a common plan to do so is a crime: Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson
http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocJac14.htm
=
"I'm often amazed at the way politicians, who spend hours poring over opinion poll results in a desperate attempt to discover what the public thinks, are certain they know precisely what God's views are on everything.": Simon Hoggart
=
"Going to church no more makes you a Christian than sleeping in your garage makes you a car.": Garrison Keiler
All above quotes from INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE
Posted by _MarthaA on January 21, 2007 at 04:43 PM
Liberty is not for the Boobus Americanus of the Working Class. Who are the Boobus Americanus???????
Liberty is not for these slaves; I do not advocate inflicting it against their conscience. On the contrary, I am strongly in favor of letting them crawl and grovel all they please before whatever fraud or combination of frauds they choose to venerate...Our whole practical government is grounded in mob psychology and.. the Boobus Americanus will follow any command that promises to make him safer." --H. L. Menchen -- 1956. --
=
O liberty! O liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name!: Madame Jeanne-Marie Roland
=
The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understands the minds of other men and women…: Learned Hand
=
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself: Thomas Paine
=
Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down: Frederick Douglass
=
He who dares not offend cannot be honest: Thomas Paine
===
Quotes provided by Information Clearing House
Posted by _MarthaA on January 22, 2007 at 02:48 AM
Dear Socialist Presidential Want-a-Be’s,
I wonder does DNC stand for “Do Nothing Cowards?” You Democrats want to stay youthful, and in doing so you cling on to those boring old national socialist thoughts you believed were intelligent and original when viewed through your bong smoke and acid hazes in high school. Your political attitudes can be summed up by looking at the behavior of just one of your leaders-Senator Biden.
Biden, please consider growing old gracefully and discontinue any more attempts at regaining your drug abusing hippie youth. Your plastic surgery is shining through the botulinum toxin fog that surrounds your face. Your current plastic surgery has stretched your face so much your ears are almost touching on the back of your neck. Your longing for your youth during the good old 1960’s has polluted your thinking and caused you to strive to recreate them for my generation. We don’t want your ideals or your leadership.
We don’t want Clinton’s slickly packaged false advertising, and we don’t Edwards surrendering for us. We don’t want John Kerry throwing away our futures in the same manner he threw away his medals and his respect for our military. We don’t want Obama going into a drug induced tantrum because someone asks him about the gargantuan appearance of his listening devices after those same ears trip him up while he does some blow. We don’t want any of you national socialists as our leaders.
We want someone who will lead our nation and not cut and run at every downward trending poll. We want a leader who stands his or her ground and does what is right for the security of this nation and its’ interests. We want a leader who understands that information on the battle field can be skewed by the enemy and a press who hate our great United States. In other words we don’t want some spineless, gutless, flip-flopping, cut and run neo-national socialist Democrat as our leader.
The people who hate the United States have much in common with the political agendas of the Democrat Party. Take a look at the dishonorable David Duke’s web site from Ukraine and you’ll see he believes the same things the Do Nothing Cowards are espousing. Al Qaeda, the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and other terrorists around the globe reflect the words shouted by your leaders in the Democrat party, and use them as propaganda on their own on-line recruiting vehicles.
Some of you have slammed me for not doing my homework, and I say you need to do your own. Research what your Democrat leaders said before voting for the AUMF and PATRIOT Acts. All your Democrat leaders were arguing about the need for more troops in Iraq just a few months ago! They were slamming President Bush for not listening to the generals who said we needed more boots on the ground to finish the job! Now that the choice has been made to step up and finish this fight with strength through victory, your leaders back track like a bunch of mud bug lobsters.
Take a look at what the intelligence said about Sadam before we went into Iraq. Everyone asks where the WMD’s are? Count how many trucks were shipped to the Baathist regime in Syria which could have carried tons of materials from Iraq into that country. Listen to the words of the Iraqi Air Force General who said he personally supervised the shipment of WMD’s using stripped down civilian air-liners into Syria. Or do you only hear the words of those Generals you agree with at the time?
The duplicitous natures of those in the DNC and the politicians they support are serving the needs of our enemies. All of your current leaders, except those who weren’t in power at the time, voted for everything this Nation did at the beginning of this war on terror. They supported every measure toward victory, but when the polls shift they turn coat and run. I have no respect for any of the current leaders in the Democratic Party, and never will until they get some nerve to do what is needed to win the war on terror.
Iraq is not a separate war from our efforts to fight “INTERNATIONAL” terrorism. Iraq is a single battle which must be won. I’ve heard some in your party cry out for U.S. involvement in Sudan, but then say we shouldn’t have interfered to stop the murdering of innocent civilians in Iraq? I listen as you shout that Afghanistan is somehow more righteous than our efforts in Iraq. Is it because the Taliban supported Al-Qaeda? Because Al-Qaeda supported the killing of almost 3000 people on September 11, 2001? What if only 1000 were killed that day? Would it still be worth it? What if 100, or 50, or even just 1 person were killed on September 11th? Would going to war in Afghanistan still be worth it? If you say no then I pity you for your ignorant cowardice. If you say yes then I say you should then support Iraq as much as you support Afghanistan!
Sadam supported Palestinian homicide bombers who at times ended up killing American Citizens in Israel. He supported the same terrorists who took over the Achille Lauro. Holding the passengers and crew hostage, they directed the vessel to sail to Tartus, Syria, and demanded the release of 50 Palestinians then in Israeli prisons. Refused permission to dock at Tartus, the hijackers shot one wheelchair-bound passenger – an American named Leon Klinghoffer – because he was Jewish. They threw his body overboard. The ship headed back towards Port Said, and after two days of negotiations the hijackers agreed to abandon the ship for safe conduct and were flown towards Tunisia aboard an Egyptian commercial airliner.
The plane was intercepted by United States Navy fighters on October 10 and directed to land at Naval Air Station Sigonella, a NATO base in Sicily, where the hijackers were arrested by the Italians. The other passengers on the plane (possibly including the hijackers’ leader Abu Abbas) were allowed to continue on to their destination, despite protests by the United States. Egypt demanded an apology from the United States for forcing the airplane off course.
The fate of those convicted of the hijacking is varied. Bassam al-Asker was granted parole in 1991. He died on February 21, 2004. Ahmad Marrouf al-Assadi disappeared in 1991 while on parole. Youssef al Molqi was sentenced to 30 years in Rebibbia prison in Rome. On February 16, 1996, he was granted a 12 day furlough, and fled to Spain, where he was recaptured and extradited back to Italy. Abu Abbas left the jurisdiction of Italy and was convicted in absentia. The United States and Klinghoffer's family insisted he be brought to justice. Abbas was captured in Iraq in 2003 by the U.S. military after we deposed the dictator who supported him. He died in US custody March 8, 2004. Sadam’s support for terror is well documented but ignored by the Do Nothing Cowards.
Remember what happened when we cut and ran from Vietnam? Millions were murdered after we left, and not only in Vietnam, but in Cambodia as well. Eisenhower’s Domino Theory almost played out because the hippie left (which now runs the Democrats and controls most of the press) pulled the same the tricks they are now. Millions died because they wanted to make love not war. War is an awful thing which should only be used as a last resort, but is sometimes needed to fight despotic dictators and the terrorists they support.
What do you think will occur if we cut and run from Iraq? Do you truly think that things will get better when we leave? How long did we stay in Japan, Germany, Italy, the Philippines, etc. after we freed them from the Axis Powers in World War II? We are still there! Once Germany surrendered there were still Nazi trained insurgents fighting us ten years later! The German Baader-Meinhof communist terrorist group was killing people in that country well into the late 1970’s.
We are either going to finish the job in Iraq, or a Democrat who wants to be president will cause us to surrender and leave too soon. You Do Nothing Cowards will leave Iraq to become a Taliban like country with vast oil revenues to support further terrorist attacks against this nation and the rest of the civilized world.
President Bush made some mistakes, but he is still our President and deserves our support in these trying times. No matter what party you belong to anything less than total support for our troops and their Commander in Chief during this war on terror is the same as supporting our enemies. I don’t care about gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, or any of the other things important to the Democrat socialist agenda, and you won’t either if we don’t win this war on terror. The only thing I care about is the security of this nation so that we can have the freedoms to argue about all those things.
Educate yourself! Don’t just accept what your leftist, socialist press tells you as gospel. Remember that we were attacked many times before September 11, 2001. The attacks of that day were only the most violent ever, and on our own soil which caused the sleeping tiger to finally awaken. The press could not convince us to ignore the events of that day. Don’t be deluded by the idiot Hollywood left, those politicians who lap up their money, and the press who glorifies their extravagance. Just because some moron actor says it on T.V. or some uneducated singer blares it in a song doesn’t make it true. Don’t even take what I tell you as the truth! Go out and find out for yourselves! It’s amazing what can happen when you decide to read some history instead accepting some socialist revision of it. To those of you who dislike what I have to say-the truth hurts-doesn’t it?
Remember 9-11! Remember Flight 93! Keep them rolling! God bless America, and God bless our troops.
Always Faithful,
Seeking Truth
Posted by Seeking-Truth on January 22, 2007 at 02:43 PM
Dear Socialist Presidential Want-a-Be’s,
You’ll probably cut off my speech because it contains things which your party does not wish to hear, so I’ll make this a good one. I wonder does DNC stand for “Do Nothing Cowards?” You Democrats want to stay youthful, and in doing so you cling on to those boring old national socialist thoughts you believed were intelligent and original when viewed through your bong smoke and acid hazes in high school. Your political attitudes can be summed up by looking at the behavior of just one of your leaders-Senator Biden.
Biden, please consider growing old gracefully and discontinue any more attempts at regaining your drug abusing hippie youth. Your plastic surgery is shining through the botulinum toxin fog that surrounds your face. Your current plastic surgery has stretched your face so much your ears are almost touching on the back of your neck. Your longing for your youth during the good old 1960’s has polluted your thinking and caused you to strive to recreate them for my generation. We don’t want your ideals or your leadership.
We don’t want Clinton’s slickly packaged false advertising, and we don’t Edwards surrendering for us. We don’t want John Kerry throwing away our futures in the same manner he threw away his medals and his respect for our military. We don’t want Obama going into a drug induced tantrum because someone asks him about the gargantuan appearance of his listening devices after those same ears trip him up while he does some blow. We don’t want any of you national socialists as our leaders.
We want someone who will lead our nation and not cut and run at every downward trending poll. We want a leader who stands his or her ground and does what is right for the security of this nation and its’ interests. We want a leader who understands that information on the battle field can be skewed by the enemy and a press who hate our great United States. In other words we don’t want some spineless, gutless, flip-flopping, cut and run neo-national socialist Democrat as our leader.
The people who hate the United States have much in common with the political agendas of the Democrat Party. Take a look at the dishonorable David Duke’s web site from Ukraine and you’ll see he believes the same things the Do Nothing Cowards are espousing. Al Qaeda, the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and other terrorists around the globe reflect the words shouted by your leaders in the Democrat party, and use them as propaganda on their own on-line recruiting vehicles.
Some of you have slammed me for not doing my homework, and I say you need to do your own. Research what your Democrat leaders said before voting for the AUMF and PATRIOT Acts. All your Democrat leaders were arguing about the need for more troops in Iraq just a few months ago! They were slamming President Bush for not listening to the generals who said we needed more boots on the ground to finish the job! Now that the choice has been made to step up and finish this fight with strength through victory, your leaders back track like a bunch of mud bug lobsters.
Take a look at what the intelligence said about Sadam before we went into Iraq. Everyone asks where the WMD’s are? Count how many trucks were shipped to the Baathist regime in Syria which could have carried tons of materials from Iraq into that country. Listen to the words of the Iraqi Air Force General who said he personally supervised the shipment of WMD’s using stripped down civilian air-liners into Syria. Or do you only hear the words of those Generals you agree with at the time?
The duplicitous natures of those in the DNC and the politicians they support are serving the needs of our enemies. All of your current leaders, except those who weren’t in power at the time, voted for everything this Nation did at the beginning of this war on terror. They supported every measure toward victory, but when the polls shift they turn coat and run. I have no respect for any of the current leaders in the Democratic Party, and never will until they get some nerve to do what is needed to win the war on terror.
Iraq is not a separate war from our efforts to fight “INTERNATIONAL” terrorism. Iraq is a single battle which must be won. I’ve heard some in your party cry out for U.S. involvement in Sudan, but then say we shouldn’t have interfered to stop the murdering of innocent civilians in Iraq? I listen as you shout that Afghanistan is somehow more righteous than our efforts in Iraq. Is it because the Taliban supported Al-Qaeda? Because Al-Qaeda supported the killing of almost 3000 people on September 11, 2001? What if only 1000 were killed that day? Would it still be worth it? What if 100, or 50, or even just 1 person were killed on September 11th? Would going to war in Afghanistan still be worth it? If you say no then I pity you for your ignorant cowardice. If you say yes then I say you should then support Iraq as much as you support Afghanistan!
Sadam supported Palestinian homicide bombers who at times ended up killing American Citizens in Israel. He supported the same terrorists who took over the Achille Lauro. Holding the passengers and crew hostage, they directed the vessel to sail to Tartus, Syria, and demanded the release of 50 Palestinians then in Israeli prisons. Refused permission to dock at Tartus, the hijackers shot one wheelchair-bound passenger – an American named Leon Klinghoffer – because he was Jewish. They threw his body overboard. The ship headed back towards Port Said, and after two days of negotiations the hijackers agreed to abandon the ship for safe conduct and were flown towards Tunisia aboard an Egyptian commercial airliner.
The plane was intercepted by United States Navy fighters on October 10 and directed to land at Naval Air Station Sigonella, a NATO base in Sicily, where the hijackers were arrested by the Italians. The other passengers on the plane (possibly including the hijackers’ leader Abu Abbas) were allowed to continue on to their destination, despite protests by the United States. Egypt demanded an apology from the United States for forcing the airplane off course.
The fate of those convicted of the hijacking is varied. Bassam al-Asker was granted parole in 1991. He died on February 21, 2004. Ahmad Marrouf al-Assadi disappeared in 1991 while on parole. Youssef al Molqi was sentenced to 30 years in Rebibbia prison in Rome. On February 16, 1996, he was granted a 12 day furlough, and fled to Spain, where he was recaptured and extradited back to Italy. Abu Abbas left the jurisdiction of Italy and was convicted in absentia. The United States and Klinghoffer's family insisted he be brought to justice. Abbas was captured in Iraq in 2003 by the U.S. military after we deposed the dictator who supported him. He died in US custody March 8, 2004. Sadam’s support for terror is well documented but ignored by the Do Nothing Cowards.
Remember what happened when we cut and ran from Vietnam? Millions were murdered after we left, and not only in Vietnam, but in Cambodia as well. Eisenhower’s Domino Theory almost played out because the hippie left (which now runs the Democrats and controls most of the press) pulled the same the tricks they are now. Millions died because they wanted to make love not war. War is an awful thing which should only be used as a last resort, but is sometimes needed to fight despotic dictators and the terrorists they support.
What do you think will occur if we cut and run from Iraq? Do you truly think that things will get better when we leave? How long did we stay in Japan, Germany, Italy, the Philippines, etc. after we freed them from the Axis Powers in World War II? We are still there! Once Germany surrendered there were still Nazi trained insurgents fighting us ten years later! The German Baader-Meinhof communist terrorist group was killing people in that country well into the late 1970’s.
We are either going to finish the job in Iraq, or a Democrat who wants to be president will cause us to surrender and leave too soon. You Do Nothing Cowards will leave Iraq to become a Taliban like country with vast oil revenues to support further terrorist attacks against this nation and the rest of the civilized world.
President Bush made some mistakes, but he is still our President and deserves our support in these trying times. No matter what party you belong to anything less than total support for our troops and their Commander in Chief during this war on terror is the same as supporting our enemies. I don’t care about gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, or any of the other things important to the Democrat socialist agenda, and you won’t either if we don’t win this war on terror. The only thing I care about is the security of this nation so that we can have the freedoms to argue about all those things.
Educate yourself! Don’t just accept what your leftist, socialist press tells you as gospel. Remember that we were attacked many times before September 11, 2001. The attacks of that day were only the most violent ever, and on our own soil which caused the sleeping tiger to finally awaken. The press could not convince us to ignore the events of that day. Don’t be deluded by the idiot Hollywood left, those politicians who lap up their money, and the press who glorifies their extravagance. Just because some moron actor says it on T.V. or some uneducated singer blares it in a song doesn’t make it true. Don’t even take what I tell you as the truth! Go out and find out for yourselves! It’s amazing what can happen when you decide to read some history instead accepting some socialist revision of it. To those of you who dislike what I have to say-the truth hurts-doesn’t it?
Remember 9-11! Remember Flight 93! Keep them rolling! God bless America, and God bless our troops.
Always Faithful,
Seeking Truth
Posted by Seeking-Truth on January 22, 2007 at 02:50 PM
Ah, yes, Seeking is still looking and hasn't found out the whole truth, yet, though he seems to be on to something concerning the Republi-lites.
But what a superfluousity of verbage to expound his ignorance. Amazing!
Seeking, start by reading the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. You might learn something. Hopefully.
Posted by Butte on January 22, 2007 at 05:20 PM
I have observed that the lack of educational resources always is concentrated on the low end of the economic scale. The uber rich have no interest in educating lower classes because that might increase competition for the real jobs left in America. As resources continue to dwindle and the economy returns to the level of the 1700s, fewer resources will be available for larger numbers of people. With the end of cheap oil, only the ruling classes will continue to enjoy privilage in this world.
Posted by penury on January 23, 2007 at 10:33 AM
ANTI-WAR PROTEST MARCH ON WASHINGTON JANUARY 27th
Ask Your Friends to Join the Virtual March on Washington
This Saturday, January 27, will be the largest anti-war protest since the war began on 3/19/03, with a big march in Washington DC:
http://unitedforpeace.org
and local events across the country:
http://tinyurl.com/24e8rp
(More details below).
Of course only a small fraction of America will participate in these events because of time, money, or lack of awareness due to the corporate media blackout of all progressive organizing.
We really need everyone who opposes the Iraq War to speak up NOW. That's why we're making it easy with a Virtual March on Washington:
http://democrats.com/outofiraq
Americans oppose Bush's escalation by 68%-26% - that's 153 million adults and millions more teens. Yet George Bush still adamantly refuses to listen to us, and Congress is moving too slowly to stop him.
Each of us knows 5, 10, 20, 50, or 100 people who share our opposition to Bush's War but won't march in the streets.
All we ask is they take 1 minute to email their Representatives:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/90
We will tally the emails on the right side of the page and hope to collect as many as we possibly can.
Can you help us by reaching out to your personal email lists? Click here:
http://democrats.com/outofiraq
________________
Breaking News: Rep. Jim McGovern to introduce "The Safe and Orderly Withdrawal Act"
This week, our friend and ally Rep. Jim McGovern will introduce new legislation, "The Safe and Orderly Withdrawal Act of 2007," calling for the safe and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq within 30 days of enactment to be completed within 180 days. The withdrawal would be paid for by already appropriated funds and all funds for deployment of U.S. troops would be terminated upon completion of the withdrawal. More:
http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-01-22-19-06-36-news.php
Exclusive PDA interview with Rep. Jim McGovern
By David Swanson, PDA Board Member
In an exclusive interview conducted Jan. 22 for PDA by David Swanson, Rep. McGovern commented on a range of issues:
* The urgency of this moment: "This war has gone on longer than our involvement in WW II. It is time to step it up a notch and to urge Congress to finally live up to its constitutional responsibility."
* Upcoming "supplemental" funding bills: "I don’t want to be talking about emergency supplementals in 2008 or 2009. I want this war over! I don’t want the next Presidential election to be about the war in Iraq."
More:
http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-01-22-19-09-50-news.php
Podcast: Tony Trupiano visits with Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)
Listen to this podcast:
http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=959
Sign This Petition in Support of McGovern's Bill
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/94
________________
March and Lobby in Washington on January 27th, 28th, and 29th
Come to Washington, D.C., on January 27. Join in the march for peace being organized by United for Peace and Justice, a march dedicated to Ending the War Now!. (Some of us will also march for impeachment.)
TIP: Buy a dozen or more Impeachment Shirts, bring them to D.C., sell them at a profit, and pay for your trip.
Come to the workshops and trainings (including on how to lobby for investigations with the ultimate goal of impeachment) on January 28th and come with us to meet with your Congress Member and Senators on January 29th. It's not too late to register:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/modinput4.php?modin=121
For comprehensive list of all sorts of related events in Washington and elsewhere in the coming days, see:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/event
_________
Print Out a Flyer and Make Copies
Click image for flyer in Word. Blank areas on right are for you to fill in local info.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/jan27flyer.doc
#####
Forward this message to everyone you know!
Posted by _MarthaA on January 23, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Sixteen Words and the Trial of Scooter Libby
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Tuesday 23 January 2007
Four years ago this month, President Bush, in his State of the Union address, said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The intelligence those sixteen words were based upon turned out to be crude forgeries. Evidence collected by journalists and various legislative committees over the years suggests that a cabal of White House officials were fully aware that the intelligence was suspect, but allowed its inclusion in the State of the Union address because it would help the administration win support for the war.
Not long after the president's State of the Union address, an unknown former US ambassador named Joseph Wilson began to privately question the veracity of the sixteen words. In doing so, he became a target of the White House officials who were responsible for peddling the phony intelligence and driving the US to war.
This week, one of those officials, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, goes on trial, charged with five felonies related to the unmasking of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA officer, to a handful of reporters and then lying to a grand jury and the FBI about it. These events - the Plame leak, the attack on Wilson, and the pre-war intelligence (as complicated as it has become to try to unravel and make sense of) - were spearheaded by senior members of the Bush administration in an effort to protect the individuals responsible for planting the 16 words in Bush's speech.
"At the Center of the Storm"
To further demonstrate just how far the White House was willing to go to suppress any new information about the infamous sixteen words from becoming public, look no further than At the Center of the Storm, a book written by former CIA director George Tenet. The book was due to be published in two weeks, but according to an email exchange with a senior editor at Harper Collins, Tenet's publisher, the book has been "postponed indefinitely" at the request of the White House because of details Tenet included in his manuscript about how the sixteen words ended up in Bush's speech. The editor, who requested anonymity, would not divulge details of Tenet's narrative, but he said information about the sixteen words contradicts the White House's official statements and Tenet's own July 2003 mea culpa accepting responsibility for allowing the president to cite the sixteen words as fact when he [Tenet] knew the intelligence was unreliable.
The Harper Collins editor said in the email that it was this description of Tenet's book that gave the White House pause:
In this autobiography, Tenet offers his candid views on the agency's mistakes when it came to gathering intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, as well as previously unreported encounters and meetings with members of the Bush administration ... his warnings to White House officials in the spring and summer of 2001, and the plan for a response laid down just six days after the attack. He explains the land-mine missteps made along the way, and the role of his own statements. While recounting the headline events, Tenet also offers his thoughts on the future of the CIA and its role in international relations and foreign policy decisions. Tenet provides fresh insights and background, including a privileged account of how the famous "sixteen words" made it into the President's State of the Union speech, the real context of his own now-famous "slam-dunk" comment, and the CIA's views of the rise of an Iraqi insurgency.
If Tenet's book lives up to the publisher's hype, it could certainly change the narrative about the Iraq War, and may even shed additional light on the events that led Libby and other officials to leak Plame's status with the CIA.
Although the war itself is not being tried in US district court in Washington, DC, the invasion is still very much the focal point, at least peripherally, of the Libby trial.
A list of potential witnesses released by Libby's defense attorneys and Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor trying the case, reads like a who's who of pre-war Iraq planning. It not only may offer the first on-the-record account of the details that led to the leak of the CIA officer, but may also provide a window in which to see how the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to make a case for war - a war that has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 US soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
The Potential Witnesses
For the average person, the names of these behind-the-scenes policy wonks won't have much meaning. But they are the architects of the Iraq War. And they all had played a role in pushing for the inclusion of those sixteen words in President Bush's State of the Union address on January 28, 2003.
Many of the officials identified as potential witnesses were members of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which came together in August 2002 to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. WHIG was founded by Bush's chief of staff Andrew Card and operated out of the vice president's office. The WHIG was not only responsible for selling the Iraq War, but it took great pains to discredit anyone who openly disagreed with the official Iraq War story.
The group's members included Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, Bush advisor Karen Hughes, Senior Advisor to the Vice President Mary Matalin, Deputy Director of Communications James Wilkinson, Assistant to the President and Legislative Liaison Nicholas Calio, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby - Chief of Staff to the vice president and co-author of the administration's pre-emptive strike policy. Matalin is now a member of the advisory committee of Libby's legal defense fund.
Rice was later appointed secretary of state; her deputy, Hadley, became national security advisor. Wilkinson departed to become a spokesman for the military's central command, and later for the Republican National Convention. Hughes was appointed under secretary of state.
Another member of WHIG, John Hannah, along with former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, were interviewed by FBI officials in 2004, according to a report in the Washington Post, to determine if they were involved in leaking US security secrets to Israel, former head of the Iraqi National Congress Ahmed Chalabi, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Several members of the group have testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury, and are named as potential witnesses for the prosecution and defense team.
The White House Iraq Group operated virtually unknown until January 2004, when Fitzgerald subpoenaed for notes, email and attendance records. Bush Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. created the group in August 2002.
"A senior official who participated in its work called it "an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities," according to an August 10, 2003, Washington Post investigative report on the group's inner workings.
Karl Rove, senior Bush adviser, chaired meetings of the group.
In October 2005, the Wall Street Journal confirmed that the Iraq group was under scrutiny by Fitzgerald's grand jury.
"Formed in August 2002, the group, which included Messrs. [Karl] Rove and [Lewis] Libby, worked on setting strategy for selling the war in Iraq to the public in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion," the Journal reported. "The group likely would have played a significant role in responding to [former ambassador Joseph] Wilson's claims" that the Bush administration twisted intelligence when it said Iraq tried to acquire yellowcake uranium from Africa.
Rove's "strategic communications" task force, operating inside the group, was instrumental in writing and coordinating speeches by senior Bush administration officials, highlighting in September 2002 that Iraq was a nuclear threat, the Journal reported.
During its very first meetings, Card's Iraq group ordered a series of white papers showing Iraq's arms violations. The first paper, "A Grave and Gathering Danger: Saddam Hussein's Quest for Nuclear Weapons," was never published. However, the paper was drafted with the assistance of experts from the National Security Council and Cheney's office.
"In its later stages, the draft white paper coincided with production of a National Intelligence Estimate and its unclassified summary. "But the WHIG, according to three officials who followed the white paper's progress, wanted gripping images and stories not available in the hedged and austere language of intelligence," according to the Washington Post.
Judith Miller, Aluminum Tubes, and the Mushroom Cloud
The group relied heavily on New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who, after meeting with several of the organization's members in August 2002, wrote an explosive story that many critics of the war believe laid the groundwork for military action against Iraq. Miller - who spent 85 days in federal prison for refusing to testify that Libby had told her Plame worked for the CIA and had recommended Wilson for the Niger trip, suggesting that his work was the result of nepotism - is expected to testify on behalf of the prosecution.
On Sunday, September 8, 2002, Miller wrote a story for the Times, quoting anonymous officials who said aluminum tubes found in Iraq were to be used as centrifuges. Her report said the "diameter, thickness and other technical specifications" of the tubes - precisely the grounds for skepticism among nuclear enrichment experts - showed that they were "intended as components of centrifuges."
She closed her piece by quoting then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who said the United States would not sit by and wait to find a smoking gun to prove its case, possibly in the form of a "a mushroom cloud." After Miller's piece was published, administration officials pursued their case on Sunday talk shows, using Miller's piece as evidence that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear bomb, even though those officials were the ones who supplied Miller with the story and were quoted anonymously.
Rice's comments on CNN's "Late Edition" reaffirmed Miller's story. Rice said that Saddam Hussein was "actively pursuing a nuclear weapon" and that the tubes - described repeatedly in US intelligence reports as "dual-use" items - were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs ... centrifuge programs."
Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," also mentioned the aluminum tubes story in the Times and said "increasingly, we believe the United States will become the target" of an Iraqi atomic bomb. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, on CBS's "Face the Nation," asked viewers to "imagine a September 11th with weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush reiterated the image of Rice's mushroom cloud comment in his October 7, 2002, speech.
The International Atomic Energy Agency later revealed that Iraq's aluminum tubes were never designed to enrich uranium.
How the Sixteen Words Ended Up in the SOTU
The WHIG pushed the envelope when Robert Joseph, one of its high-level behind-the-scenes members, who has also been identified as a potential witness in the Libby trial, suggested that the sixteen words about Iraq's supposed attempts to acquire uranium from Niger be included in the State of the Union address. Joseph, formerly the director of nonproliferation at the National Security Council, is now the under secretary of state for arms control - a position once held by John Bolton. Bolton now is United States ambassador to the United Nations. Joseph testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury that he played no part in the leak and that he was not involved in attempts by the administration to discredit Wilson.
Moreover, Joseph testified about the sixteen words. He told Fitzgerald's grand jury that he did not recall receiving a warning in the form of a phone call from Alan Foley, director of the CIA's nonproliferation, intelligence and arms control center, saying that the sixteen words should not be included in Bush's speech, the sources said.
Foley had revealed this element during a closed-door hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence back in July 2003 - just two weeks after Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times documenting his role investigating whether Iraq tried to acquire uranium from Niger.
The Senate committee held hearings during this time to try to find out how the administration came to rely on the Niger intelligence at a time when numerous intelligence agencies had warned top officials in the Bush administration that it was unreliable.
Foley said he had spoken to Joseph a day or two before President Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address and told Joseph that detailed references to Iraq and Niger should be excluded from the final draft. Foley told committee members that Joseph had agreed to water down the language and would instead, he told Foley, attribute the intelligence to the British, which is exactly how Bush's speech was worded.
The Ambassador Emerges
A day after Bush's speech, former ambassador Joseph Wilson said he reminded a friend at the State Department that he had traveled to Niger in February 2002 to investigate whether Iraq attempted to acquire yellowcake uranium from Niger. Wilson wrote in a July 6, 2003, op-ed in the New York Times that the White House's belief that Iraq was shopping for uranium was "not borne out by the facts as I understood them."
Wilson's friend at the State Department replied that "perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case."
Despite his friend's response, Wilson still believed the administration was trying to sell a war that was based on phony intelligence. In March 2003, Wilson began to publicly question the administration's use of the Niger claims without disclosing his role in traveling to Niger in February 2002 to investigate it. Wilson's criticism of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence caught the attention of Cheney, Libby and Hadley.
In an interview that took place two and a half weeks before the start of the Iraq War, Wilson said the administration was more interested in redrawing the map of the Middle East to pursue its own foreign policy objectives than in dealing with the so-called terrorist threat.
"The underlying objective, as I see it - the more I look at this - is less and less disarmament, and it really has little to do with terrorism, because everybody knows that a war to invade and conquer and occupy Iraq is going to spawn a new generation of terrorists," Wilson said in a March 2, 2003, interview with CNN.
"So you look at what's underpinning this, and you go back and you take a look at who's been influencing the process. And it's been those who really believe that our objective must be far grander, and that is to redraw the political map of the Middle East," Wilson added.
During the same CNN segment in which Wilson was interviewed, former United Nations weapons inspector David Albright made similar comments about the rationale for the Iraq War and added that he believed UN weapons inspectors should be given more time to search the country for weapons of mass destruction.
National Security Council and CIA officials said Cheney had visited CIA headquarters and asked several CIA officials to dig up dirt on Albright, and to put together a dossier that would discredit his work that could be distributed to the media.
"Vice President Cheney was more concerned with Mr. Albright," the CIA official said. "The international community had been saying that inspectors should have more time ... that the US should not set a deadline. The vice president felt Mr. Albright's remarks would fuel the debate."
A week later, Wilson was interviewed on CNN again. This was the first time Wilson ridiculed the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger. "Well, this particular case is outrageous. We know a lot about the uranium business in Niger, and for something like this to go unchallenged by the US - the US government - is just simply stupid. It would have taken a couple of phone calls. We have had an embassy there since the early 1960s. All this stuff is open. It's a restricted market of buyers and sellers," Wilson said in the March 8, 2003, CNN interview. "For this to have gotten to the IAEA is on the face of it dumb, but more to the point, it taints the whole rest of the case that the government is trying to build against Iraq."
Cheney and Hadley
Wilson's comments enraged Cheney because it was seen as a personal attack against the vice president, who was instrumental in getting his underlings to cite the Niger claims in government reports to build a case for war against Iraq.
The former ambassador's stinging rebuke also caught the attention of Stephen Hadley, who had played an even bigger role in the Niger controversy by allowing President Bush to cite the allegations in his State of the Union address.
At this time, the international community, various media outlets, and the International Atomic Energy Agency had called into question the veracity of the Niger documents. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of IAEA, told the UN Security Council on March 7, 2003, that the Niger documents were forgeries and could not be used to prove Iraq was a nuclear threat.
Wilson's comments, in addition to ElBaradei's UN report, were seen as a threat to the administration's planned attack against Iraq, which took place eleven days later.
Hadley had avoided making public comments about the veracity of the Niger documents, going as far as ignoring a written request by IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei to share the intelligence with his agency so his inspectors could verify the claims. Hadley is said to have known the Niger documents were crude forgeries, but, along with Joseph, pushed the administration to cite them as evidence that Iraq was a nuclear threat, according to the State Department officials, who said they personally told Hadley in a written report that the documents were bogus.
Hadley responded to Wilson's comments by writing an editorial about the Iraqi threat, which it was hoped would be a first step in overshadowing Wilson's CNN appearance.
A column written by Hadley that appeared in the Chicago Tribune on February 16, 2003, was redistributed to newspaper editors by the State Department on March 10, 2003, two days after Wilson was interviewed on CNN. The column, "Two Potent Iraqi Weapons: Denial and Deception" once again raised the issue that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger.
Cheney appeared on "Meet the Press" on March 16, 2003, to respond to ElBaradei's assertion that the Niger documents were forgeries.
"I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong," Cheney said during the interview. "[The IAEA] has consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past."
Behind the scenes, one of the State Department officials who had a conversation with Wilson said that Wilson had been speaking to various members of Congress about the administration's use of the Niger documents and had said the intelligence the White House relied upon was flawed. Wilson's criticism of the administration's intelligence eventually leaked out to reporters, but with the Iraq War just a week away, the story was never covered.
Wilson said he had attempted to contact the White House through various channels after the State of the Union address to get the administration to correct the public record.
"I had direct discussions with the State Department [and] Senate committees," Wilson said in April 2006 in a speech to college students and faculty at California State University Northridge. "I had numerous conversations to change what they were saying publicly. I had a civic duty to hold my government to account for what it had said and done."
Wilson said he was rebuffed at every instance and that he received word, through then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, that he could state his case in writing in a public forum. That's exactly what he did. Wilson decided to write an op-ed in the New York Times and expose the administration for knowingly "twisting" the intelligence on the Iraqi nuclear threat to make a case for war. Wilson wrote that he had personally traveled to Niger to check out the Niger intelligence and had determined it was bogus.
"Nothing more, nothing less than challenging the government to come clean on this matter," Wilson said. "That's all I did."
With no sign of weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq, news accounts started to call into question the credibility of the administration's pre-war intelligence. In May 2003, Wilson re-emerged at a political conference in Washington sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.
There he told New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff that he was the special envoy who had traveled to Niger in February 2002 to check out allegations that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from the country. He told Kristoff he had briefed a CIA analyst that the claims were untrue. Wilson said he believed the administration had ignored his report and had been dishonest with Congress and the American people.
When Kristoff's column was published in the Times, the CIA official said, "a request came in from Cheney that was passed to me that said 'the vice president wants to know whether Joe Wilson went to Niger.' I'm paraphrasing. But that's more or less what I was asked to find out."
In his column, Kristoff had accused Cheney of allowing the truth about the Niger documents the administration used to build a case for war to go "missing in action." The failure of US armed forces to find any WMDs in Iraq in two months following the start of the war had been blamed on Cheney.
What in the previous months had been a request to gather information that could be used to discredit Wilson turned into a full-scale effort involving the Office of the Vice President, the National Security Council, and the State Department to find out how Wilson came to be chosen to investigate the uranium allegations involving Iraq and Niger.
Cheney was personally involved in this aspect of the information-gathering process as well, visiting CIA headquarters to inquire about Wilson. Hadley also raised questions about Wilson during this month with the State Department officials; he asked that information regarding Wilson's trip to Niger be sent to his attention at the National Security Council.
Witnesses testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury that Joseph and Hadley had worked directly with senior officials from vice president Cheney's office - including Libby, Hannah and Rove - during June 2003 to coordinate a response to reporters who had phoned the vice president's office and the NSC about the administration's use of the Niger documents.
Wilson Goes Public
The June 2003 time frame was chosen because there were already Beltway rumors swirling that Wilson was going to go public and reveal that he had checked out the Niger claims on behalf of the CIA and that there was no truth to them. At the same time that Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA status was leaked to reporters, Libby, Rove and Hadley had been exchanging emails that included draft statements explaining how the "sixteen words" ended up in President Bush's State of the Union address.
It was during the course of their attempts to attack Wilson's credibility and rebut his charges that officials in the State Department, the CIA, Cheney's office, and the National Security Council - many of whom were responsible for pushing the administration to cite the Niger claims - learned that Wilson's wife was a covert CIA agent and, upon learning that she may have been responsible for sending Wilson to Niger, leaked her name to a handful of reporters.
Five days after Wilson's explosive column was published, CIA Director George Tenet accepted responsibility for allowing the infamous "sixteen words" to be included in Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address. Many people interpreted this as Tenet falling on his sword to protect the president.
Two weeks later, the CIA revealed that other administration officials were culpable as well. CIA officials sent Hadley two memos in October 2002, warning him not to continue peddling the Niger claims to the White House because the intelligence was not accurate.
Hadley, who didn't heed the CIA's warnings at the time, said during a press conference on July 23, 2003, that he had forgotten about the memos.
On September 14, 2003, during an interview with Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney maintained that he didn't know Wilson or have any knowledge about his Niger trip or who was responsible for leaking his wife's name to the media. But Cheney knew Wilson well. He had spent months obsessing about him, according to court filings.
"I don't know Joe Wilson," Cheney said, in response to Russert, who had quoted Wilson as saying there was no truth to the Niger uranium claims. "I've never met Joe Wilson. And Joe Wilson - I don't who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back ... I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea who hired him."
Jason Leopold is a former Los Angeles bureau chief for Dow Jones Newswire. He has written over 2,000 stories on the California energy crisis and received the Dow Jones Journalist of the Year Award in 2001 for his coverage on the issue as well as a Project Censored award in 2004. Leopold also reported extensively on Enron's downfall and was the first journalist to land an interview with former Enron president Jeffrey Skilling following Enron's bankruptcy filing in December 2001. Leopold has appeared on CNBC and National Public Radio as an expert on energy policy and has also been the keynote speaker at more than two dozen energy industry conferences around the country.
Posted by _MarthaA on January 23, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Yes-the actions the current leaders in the Democrat Party are taking inspire our enemies to continue their fight against us. Thank God for Joe Lieberman-a.k.a. "The Only Democrat With Guts!"-for asking the tough question that this nations needs to hear.
Oh yeah, that's right. He's no longer a Democrat, because you "Do Nothing Cowards" turned your backs on him when the going got tough. There is definitely a direct correlation between your behavior toward Senator Lieberman and how you are acting toward our troops in Iraq.
You will do anything for power! If taking a stand for your country means your power is threatened then you (Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Biden, Dodd, and the RINO's who support you) will turn your back on your nation instead of losing some polling points.
The rest of you in the "Do Nothing Cowards" party should take notes on Senator Lieberman's leadership abilities. Every one of you polticos (Democrat or Republican) who supported the war on terror (until the Hollywood left grabbed your spine) should be ashamed of your current actions to undermine our troops!
I agree with Lt. Gen. David Petraeus who said "None of this will be rapid...The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy", (The same thing our Commander in Chief-President Bush has communicated to this nation since the beginning of the war on terror).
The problem with this war is not the hard tasks placed before us, but you gutless "Do Nothing Cowards" and RINO's who expect this war on terror to be different from every other one fought by our Nation's military. If anything this war is the hardest our military will face, and our troops should be given everything they need to win it.
The last thing they need is some politician dictating their tactics and limiting their ability to increase their strength or funds when they need them. If you think your Vietnam Era Baby Booming Boob tactics which you used to lose that war will succeed here then you couldn't be more wrong.
The only thing your hoping for is our nation's failure so political vultures like Biden can strengthen his "Do Nothing Coward" voting base. He did the same thing during Vietnam that he's doing now in making resolutions that mean nothing but will lead to pulling the rug even further out from under our troops.
These politicians know their United States history but they seek to deny it from you, their supporters. They say this war is like Vietnam, but they fail to tell you what they did during that war to cause our Nation to lose it. They know that sponsoring bills of no confidence is exactly what they (Biden and other Senators)did during Vietnam. Their next step will be to strip funds from our troop’s effort, and limiting their numbers.
I thank God that these Baby Boomers weren't around when real men and women were fighting the Nazis during World War II. If they we had to rely on their leadership then we’d all be speaking German today. Think about what happened in that war.
Japan bombs Pearl Harbor. The "Do Nothing Cowards" would support us fighting in the Pacific, but what would they say about freeing Europe? "Germany didn't attack us!"-"Tojo is the person we should be focusing on!"-"The war in Europe is a great distraction on the real war in the Pacific!"-"President Roosevelt's war in Europe is too expensive-we can't fund our New Deal!"
What would they say about the losses during D-Day? "We lost more people during D-Day than we lost during the attacks on Pearl Harbor!"
What would they say about the Market Garden airborne operation in Holland? "The Roosevelt Administration won't admit their mistakes! They knew it was bridge too far!"
Can you imagine what the world would be like today if these spineless, selfish, power-hungry baby boomers were in charge during that war? I shudder to even think about the horror of that scenario.
You "Do Nothing Cowards" have two choices:
STEP UP and help us win this war by supporting our efforts
or STEP ASIDE and let real men and women do the hard tasks which must be done to win this battle in Iraq and the war on terror!
The truth is that these "Do Nothing Cowards" (Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Biden, Dodd, and the RINO's who support them) have linked themselves so closely to our Nation failing in Iraq that they can't allow any measure which could lead to our military's success in that theater.
The truth is that they and their former DNC affiliated allies in the media have trumpeted the mistakes and failures in the war on terror instead of the successes. The truth is that in trumpeting failure these politicians have given succor to our enemy by inspiring them to continue and outlast your will to win. The truth is that they understand winning in Iraq will strengthen the Republican party, but they refuse to believe that if they help win it then it helps them too.
Remember former President Clinton bemoaning the fact that the attacks of September 11th didn’t happen on his watch? He said this because he realizes that moments in history define a Presidency, and the only moment he has is Monica Missiles. So what do the “Do Nothing Cowards” do? They tear down President Bush no matter what it does to our nations security.
The “Do Nothing Cowards” say we need to do everything the 911 Commission demands, but they cry out for us to stop listening in on suspect terrorist phone calls, and repeal the amendments in the PATRIOT act. By the way these are things the 911 Commission suggested we do.
Don't continue to support these two-face, fork-tongued, "Do Nothing Cowards" or any other gutless politician who doesn't demand everything it takes to win the battle for Iraq and the war on terror!
The truth hurts doesn't it?
Remember September 11th! Remember Flight 93! God bless the United States of America, and God bless our troops!
Always Faithful,
Seeking Truth
Posted by Seeking-Truth on January 23, 2007 at 03:39 PM
Seeking Truth,
You are a dumb troll! It is clear to me that your knowledge of history and your education are "beyound all description". You said we are ignorant? Well, judging by your comments, illogical reasoning and nonsensical gibberish, you are not qualified to make this assertion. In fact, if you are more than 18 years old, it disturbs me greatly that you are legally allowed to vote for public office. Hopefully the rest of the nation isn't gonna be so dimwitted to vote in people like McCain or Romney. Which will be your only other choice by the way.
Oh yeah, I am truly sorry and I sincerely apologize for using the terms "dimwit" and "ignorant", I just saw John McCain candidate for President in 2008 on television and I got mad thinking he could be the leader of the free world in a couple of years. I especially apologize and feel terrible for my comments if you are under 18 years of age. If that was the case, you should have told me that in the first place and perhaps I would have been kinder. You probably better go do your homework now, so that next time you post your crap here you know history a little bit better.
Good Luck and have a great day...
Posted by superdawg on January 23, 2007 at 04:56 PM
President Bush just finished giving an inspiring speech describing the state of our union, and the risk of failing to reinforce and provide for the troops during the battle for Iraq and the rest of the war on terror.
Once he finished I noticed John Kerry and others run out of the room. They were no doubt on their way to spin their doom and gloom ideals about how lousy our country is doing, and how terrible our troops are behaving. They'll probably end up on CNN or MSNBC slamming us as we head off for the fight of our lives.
What can they say after that speech? That the Democrats don't want better fuel economy in the United States? The Democrats don't support reducing HIV and malaria in Africa?
I'll tell you what the "Do Nothing Cowards" will say in their Democratic response-"We Democrats support the troops; we just don't want them to win. We Democrats support the troops, but we think they're going to lose so don't send reinforcements to strengthen their chances of success. We Democrats support the troops so much that we'll jump up every time President Bush mentions that we should during his speech, but when he talks about winning the war we'll make sure Nancy Pelosi looks like she's sucking on lemon".
Why don't you "Do Nothing Cowards" try to truly support the troops? What the Democrats are offering our military men and women now is a helping hand toward retreat and defeat.
I pray you Democrats start to act like you love this Nation more than yourselves and work toward victory instead of defeat!
Remember September 11, 2001! Remember Flight 93! God bless the United States of America, and God bless our troops!
Always Faithful,
Seeking Truth
Posted by Seeking-Truth on January 23, 2007 at 10:32 PM
The challenges of poverty are never addresseed by dominant culture media and film makers. While teaching in Chester, PA, the third poorest urban area in the US, 1991-95, I saw it all. I saw a student accosted by police for being a heroin addict. She was so poorly dressed, police stopped her, on her way to school, and went through her bag. Finding a powdery substance, baby formula, they told her she could go to jail for possession of drugs. She arrived distraught. That baby is now my god child. As a teacher, I didn't have to win over students. I didn't need to do the things this over-rated film has presented. What I did was show up, early, stay late, started clubs for free, and visited homes and ate with families at the local churches. I became an involved person. Its not until the party becomes ferociously progressive that it will garner my vote again.
Posted by discodave on January 24, 2007 at 10:26 AM
You in the "Do Nothing Coward" Democrat Party who say, "We support the troops"..."Bring 'em Home", are truly delusional. Every volunteer serving as a soldier, sailor, or Marine wants to come home, but not until the battle for Iraq, and the war on terror is won. They want to come home, but only as victors over the terrorists. The problem with the war on terror is that the Democrat Party keeps opposing every successful measure taken to thwart our enemies.
The men and women in the military understand that every time one of your great Democrat Leaders opens her mouth and claims, "We are losing"..."We are going to lose"..."We can't win in Iraq", that her words give a comforting feeling of warmth to our enemies, and the rogue nations like Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, and Venezuela who support terror.
I guarantee that if you search hard enough you'll find some people who served or are serving in the military that agree with the Democrat Party’s retreat and defeat ideology. Webb is one of those foolish few. However, the vast majority of those who serve want to win the battle for Iraq and the war on terror.
Just listen to what your leaders say about our Nation’s finest men and women who fight for our liberty and for the freedom of others around the world. Kerry slams our military as being uneducated. Thank God he made the decision not to join the race for U.S. President!
Chuck Rangel claims only poverty stricken youths desire serving our Nation in the military because-"That's there only hope". He should take a look at the statistics the DOD reported concerning his claim and he would know that he is wrong, wrong, wrong. Oh yeah, I need to recall that I’m talking about the Democrat Party-so truth means less than the message.
Your leaders have so much disrespect for anyone who is willing to do a job others don't or won't consider doing. Take a look at what one of your elitist Democrat Party leaders said last night to his fellow newly elected blowhards. I don’t know who it was, but he said you guys won the house and senate so that you could oppose the war, and if you don’t do so then do something safe like “Sell shoes!” I guess now people who sell shoes are somehow doing something beneath those of you who lead the “Do Nothing Cowards”.
I would much rather spend my days working with good people who do the work most of you look down upon then spend one minute with some elitist socialist like those in the “Do Nothing Coward” Democrat Party.
Do Rangel, Biden, Kerry, Clinton, Obama, Kucinich, Sheila Jackson-Lee and the rest of the Democrat Party truly believe that if those who serve in the military had not joined then they would be failures? Your leaders are glamorized in the press and by Hollywood as being great politicians-and that's their problem. The “Do Nothing Coward” Democrat Party is focused on their own political success instead of what is good for the United States of America.
Last night Webb quoted a great Republican President during his response to President Bush. The Eisenhower quote was used originally to describe what he planned to do during the Korean War. Is this what Webb wants to happen in Iraq? Does Webb want to divide that country into warring states that end up hating each other for the next 60+ years? Is Webb the best the Democrat Party can prop up? Is Webb someone who doesn’t want to win, and at best wants a stalemate in Iraq just like in Korea? Is Webb one who served in the Navy with honor, but has now somehow forgotten the lessons of Vietnam? Has Webb forgotten how the “Do Nothing Coward” Democrats like Biden and corrupt Republicans helped our nation lose Vietnam-a war Kennedy (a Democrat President) took us into us into, and one where our military won every major battle?
Obviously Webb has studied military history and he should know that had General McArthur been allowed to attack the enemy and win instead of being regulated and constrained by the then Democrat President Truman-the war in Korea would have been won. We also would not be troubled by a North Korean madman intent on obtaining nukes to sell on the black market.
I call myself Seeking Truth because that is what I truly want from my political leaders, and the press who report their deeds. I started communicating my opinion on your DNC site to see if I could get some kind of logical response from those of you who parrot each other’s supposedly intelligent words and support only the Democrat Party line. What I receive instead are responses from people who insult my intelligence, and tell me to shut up or go someplace where I can be agreed with.
Maybe the things that are said about the Democrat Party are true. Maybe the truth is that the Democrat Party truly does want our Nation to lose this battle for Iraq. Maybe the truth is the Democrat Party thinks the only problems in the world are caused by the United States of America-a nation of personal rights and liberty-instead of the totalitarian regimes around the globe. Maybe the truth is that the Democrat Party-like one of my truly socialist professors-thinks our Nation is too great and needs to be taken down a peg by losing another military conflict like we did in Vietnam. Maybe the truth is that the Democrat Party has no plan to win the battle for Iraq, and only opposes President Bush’s plan for victory because they know their allies in the socialist press will support them no matter how idiotic they act. Maybe all of those things that are said about the Democrat Party are true and that’s why I can’t get someone to respond logically.
I guess I’ll just have to keep posting so that some truthful logic will exist on your site. The truth hurts doesn’t it!
Remember September 11, 2001! Remember Flight 93! Keep rolling! Keep fighting against terrorists and those countries support them! We didn’t start this fight, but we will win it! God bless the United States of America, and God bless our troops!
Always Faithful,
Seeking Truth
Posted by Seeking-Truth on January 24, 2007 at 04:13 PM
I can't believe I just read someone talking about what brought down WTC 7! Let me guess-you think the evil Republicans and Israel conspired to kill almost 3000 people on September 11, 2001? Or are you like the KKK and Neo-Nazi fools who think it was the ZOG that planned that horrible day? I’m guessing you think the same people who committed the terror acts of September 11, 2001 are the same people who killed Kennedy, and Martin Luther King? Or maybe it was the Illuminati-or the Free Masons? Or do you think Aliens flew here from Planet X and crashed remote control planes into the buildings?
Since you obviously get your news from the internet, just type WTC 7 into a search engine and it will pull up all kinds of credible information like the following:
“Two buildings have been named 7 World Trade Center in New York, New York. The first building, which opened in 1987, was destroyed on September 11, 2001 during the terrorist attacks which took place that day. The newer building was completed in 2006 and it is the first with a World Trade Center address to be rebuilt.”
“NIST released video and still photo analysis of Building 7 prior to its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, the NIST interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest facade of the building which clearly suffered significant damage from the falling main WTC twin towers. The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south facade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south facade. A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would lead to a severely compromised structure. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately prior to the collapse, which started from the penthouse floors.”
I really didn’t expect some lunatic who thinks our nation is so evil that we would kill our own civilians for political power, but maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised. I mean, this was posted on the web site of the party who trumpets the success of our enemy so they can gain politically.
You conspiracy theorists are hilarious! The CIA killed Kennedy! The CIA killed Martin Luther King! The CIA and Bush had Cheney fly remotely controlled planes into the twin towers! It was a missile launched from a submarine that hit the Pentagon! Our government used controlled demolition to bring down the WTC twin towers and WTC 7!
You can believe every little conspiracy that comes down the pipe, but you won’t even consider the fact that Sadam might have had more to do with Al Qaeda than we know for sure? I am not saying he caused the terror attacks of that day, but think about what you’re saying.
Your hatred for the United States of America makes you believe every bad Hollywood conspiracy scenario about this country, but you won’t even consider that other nations could conspire with terrorists against us?! I pity your cowardice. No I reject your cowardice!
Any ignorant fool who believes as you do about 9-11-that our own government would do the things you conspiracy theorists believe-is a yellow coward. If you truly believe our country is that evil-then what the heck are you doing here? If you truly think that our nation does those kinds of things and you don’t lift a finger to stop them-then you are cowering fool who deserves your stupidity. Get a clue and get a life! Educate yourself beyond the internet. Just because some jerk wants to make some cash by deluding gullible ignoramuses like you-and posts stuff on the net doesn’t make it true.
No wonder the Democrat Party leaders are so far left. With friends and other Democrat Party supporters like you, who needs terrorist enemies?
By the way, I focus my attention on the events of September 11, 2001 because so many of you, my fellow citizens, and the Democrat Party seem to be suffering from a short attention span. I feel I must remind you because you seem to have forgotten what happened on that terrible day.
Remember September 11, 2001! Remember Flight 93! Keep rolling! Keep fighting against terrorists and those countries supporting them! We didn’t start this fight, but we will win it! God bless the United States of America, and God bless our troops!
Always Faithful,
Seeking Truth
Posted by Seeking-Truth on January 24, 2007 at 05:10 PM
You know, I really should stop reading your Democrat Party responses to my posts. None of you attempt to retort with sound logic and reason. You only answer with a smug sense of superiority that is indicative of the personalities who lead the Democrat Party. Some even dislike my manner of drafting. I am sorry that I don’t have the time to check my spelling and grammar before posting these quick notes.
It was suggested I read the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I have, and wish the Democrat Party would do the same.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) usually serves as constitutional arbiters who wield their power along the lines mandated within the great document. However, ever since Marshall’s decision for Marbury their power has grown. The fact is that most of the Rights the Democrats proclaim are not expressly stated in any form within the Constitution but have grown from SCOTUS decisions.
The Democrat Party demands privacy-but no where does it state our citizens have a right to privacy. The Supreme Court found that our Right to privacy is found within the “penumbra” formed out of some of the amendments. I might suggest that should they want privacy included in the Constitution- amend it.
Biden holds seminars where he teaches Constitutional Law but he and his party seem to have forgotten what the document and its amendments say. The Democrat Party says they want to protect our Constitutional Rights, but are happy to strip us of them when they deem it necessary.
The truth is that the Democrat Party shouts about imagined conspiracies that threaten our liberties mandated in the Constitution. The truth is that the Democrat Party chooses to ignore the real threat from terrorists and has decided that losing in Iraq is what they desire for our Nation. The truth is the Democrat Party needs to educate themselves and open their minds to the possibilities of victory in Iraq.
Did anyone notice that the Democrat Party never applauded when President Bush spoke of victory in Iraq? Why is that? I truly long for a truthful answer from the Democrat Party, but I am afraid I already know why. The truth is the Democrat Party does not want our country to win and will speak out with their allies in the press every day- trumpeting the horrors of battle instead of promising us victory.
I ask you in the Democrat Party to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Here they are-straight from the National Archives and Records Administration web site-old time spelling and all. Enjoy!
Remember September 11, 2001! Remember Flight 93! Keep rolling! Keep fighting against terrorists and those countries support them! We didn’t start this fight, but we will win it! God bless the United States of America, and God bless our troops!
Always Faithful,
Seeking Truth
The United States Constitution, drafted in secret by delegates to the Constitutional Convention during the summer of 1787, this four-page document, signed on September 17, 1787, established the government of the United States.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Section. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, an

