Cut off the damn funds, bring the National Guard home, no war with Iran, and get Osama Bin Laden- NOW!

I think Bush and Cheney are both delusional if they think things are going well in Iraq. We need to get out of there. Here's another example of this aministration's delusional thinking of well.
Nearly everyday we hear the same horrible news.

Car bomb in Najaf leaves 13 dead
A car bomb has exploded in the central Iraqi city of Najaf, killing at least 13 people, police have said. Full Story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6381545.stm

Hillary describes her plan to stop President Bush's escalation and lays out a roadmap for an end to the war in Iraq. Watch the short video:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/hillcast

(((( DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THE FLIP/FLOP TROLL ))))

(((( DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THE FLIP/FLOP TROLL ))))

(((( DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THE FLIP/FLOP TROLL ))))

DfD and his Under_score_alias_ is a flip flop troll. He is posting anything he possibly can to sway posters and disrupt the conversation on this blog.

STOP conversating with him.......You might know he's a troll but others might not and if they see you talking to him and they trust you, then they will think the troll is legit. Ya know?

;p

FreedomOfSpeechForBarackObama2008,

For your information, just in case you are wondering, this verb, in present continuous form is CONVERSING,ok? and not conversating! Maybe you need to do your homework more often?

Congressional Democrats have the power to defund the war, but they won't.

by W. James Antle III

When the Clintons first came to Washington, the Democratic Party’s unofficial theme song was Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow).” Today the Rolling Stones’ “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” might be a better choice. That’s the message coming through loud and clear to millions of voters who cast Democratic ballots last November with hopes of ending the Iraq War.

Democrats now control both houses of Congress, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “100 hours” legislative marathon has come to a close. President Bush is nevertheless sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, and talk is turning to Tehran, almost as if the new majority did not exist. Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promptly sent Bush a letter announcing their opposition to the surge and calling instead for redeployment. A non-binding resolution opposing the troop increase is wending its way through the Senate as we go to press.

Can’t the Democrats do more than send the president a message? As it happens, the Constitution not only gives Congress the authority to declare war but also the “power of the purse”—the ability to raise or deny funds for any military operation. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat and long-shot presidential candidate, has been challenging his colleagues to use this power. “It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war, yet continues to fund it,” he said recently. “If you oppose the war, then don’t vote to fund it.”

But virtually nobody expects that the Democrats will actually defund the war, which is precisely why many hawks are challenging them to do so. Weekly Standard editor William Kristol described Kucinich’s statement as “logical,” listing him as an “honorable exception” to the “boneless wonders” who dominate Congress. The House Republican leadership is backing a resolution that would force Democrats to take a stand on funding for both Afghanistan and Iraq. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who backs the surge argued, “If my Democrat colleagues are truly opposed to the mission in Iraq, then as the new majority they should schedule a serious debate and a vote on cutting off funding for our troops.”

The last three words of Cornyn’s volley—“for our troops”—are exactly what gives some Democrats pause. Both Reid and Pelosi have been careful to emphasize that they won’t curtail funding to troops in the field. The more forces the Pentagon has in place, the more reluctant Congress will be to do anything that can be seen as detracting from their mission. Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress warned the liberal New Standard, “By the time you vote on the money bill, a lot of the troops will already be there.”

Korb’s prediction may already be coming to pass. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley told ABC’s “This Week” that the administration believes it already had enough money for extra troops in the fiscal year 2007 budget. “I fully understand [Congress] could try to stop me from doing it,” Bush told CBS’s “60 Minutes,” “But I made my decision, and we’re going forward.”

Such bluster hasn’t kept a few powerful Democrats from introducing bills aimed at curbing the troop escalation. Sen. Ted Kennedy filed legislation prohibiting Bush from spending money for additional troops “unless and until Congress approves the president’s plan,” an approach similar to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which essentially ended American involvement in Vietnam, and the Boland Amendment, which barred President Reagan from continuing aid to the Contras. But the Kennedy bill leaves intact funding for troops that have already been sent to Iraq.

Congressman John Murtha, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, has proposed another approach. He wants to try imposing strict military readiness standards on emergency appropriations. This is intended to have the effect of making the escalation more difficult for the Bush administration while putting the Democrats on record in support of a stronger military in general. Yet this would not necessarily pull the plug on the president’s plan.

Senate Democrats entertaining presidential ambitions have been playing a transparent game of Iraq one-upmanship reminiscent of the leap-year conservatism contest between then Sens. Bob Dole and Phil Gramm during the 1996 GOP White House sweepstakes. Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, has proposed capping U.S. troop levels at 130,000, along the same lines as legislation that limited U.S. involvement in Lebanon in the 1980s. Her bill would also set benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet during the next six months.

Aides to Sen. Chris Dodd quickly cried foul, telling the New York Times that Clinton copied the cap idea from their boss’s bill. Dodd is currently exploring a presidential bid. Another 2008 contender, Sen. Barack Obama, promised to introduce his own bill calling for a phased withdrawal from Iraq, taking a step Clinton opposes.

So far, Sen. Joe Biden, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is the only Democrat to sponsor an anti-escalation bill that actually has Republican backing. Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican reportedly mulling his own presidential bid, helped draft it. Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine, has also signed on. Unlike the bills proposed by Biden’s Democratic rivals, however, this measure is non-binding—which is why it stands the best chance of passing.

Meanwhile, bills that would defund the war entirely languish with little support. The list of co-sponsors for the more far-reaching legislation is usually limited to the most liberal Democrats in the House and an even smaller group of renegade Republicans like Texas Congressman Ron Paul. A congressional website lists no co-sponsors for Georgia Democrat Sam Farr’s House resolution repealing the 2002 authorization of force. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is reluctant even to endorse Pelosi’s call for withholding funds for the surge. And all of the bills, from the most radical to the more symbolic, face one insurmountable obstacle—a presidential veto that Democrats don’t have the votes to override.

“The Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, who are now in control of Congress, have repeatedly said they are going to press Bush to devise a withdrawal plan, not force him to do so,” Nation Washington editor David Corn concluded on the website TomPaine.com. “That is, they have no intention of defunding the war.”

Extricating our troops from Iraq legislatively is no easy task. The appropriations process is a blunt instrument. Day-to-day war fighting is generally considered to be a responsibility of the president as commander in chief. This means that Congress has to carefully tailor its spending to push the executive branch toward its policy goals without depriving the troops of needed resources. That would entail cutting war spending to prompt the president to reduce troop levels accordingly, something legislators are usually reluctant to do. Even many of Bush’s harshest critics on Capitol Hill agree with Dick Cheney that “war is not run by committee.”

While the constitutional power to cut Iraq funding is clearly there, past precedents are of only limited use. The Boland Amendment applied to foreign fighters, not American soldiers. By the time Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act over President Ford’s veto in 1974, major U.S. combat operations in Vietnam had already ended.

Perhaps more importantly, the Democrats who defunded the war were blamed for the ensuing carnage in Southeast Asia. Even though they had turned against a deeply unpopular military intervention, the party later suffered at the ballot box for the dovish reputation it acquired during the later years of the Vietnam debate. The American public didn’t like the image of helicopters fleeing the embassy in Saigon any better than reports of casualties from the conflict. Democrats lost three of the next four presidential elections, a history that party members don’t want to repeat.

Indeed, the more prudent course politically would be for the Democrats to have the war to campaign against in 2008. Iraq is perhaps the biggest political liability for the two Republican frontrunners, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Sen. John McCain, who both poll well far outside the red states. A polarizing figure like Hillary Clinton can hardly afford to lose so powerful a club to wield against broadly popular opponents.

Despite Vietnam-era pushback in the form of the War Powers Act of 1973, congressional leaders have frequently been content to let the president act first and then assess the politics later. Those who have spoken out too soon have paid the price. Democrats who voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1990 saw their presidential aspirations go up in smoke, prompting John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton to make a different choice in 2002—one they now regret, since the second war against Iraq has proved less successful and popular than the first.

Yet given the fact Bush has the votes to sustain a veto, making any Democratic action purely symbolic for now, why not make a stronger statement in support of the party’s antiwar base? The legal mechanisms exist, but the party, ostensibly divided by competing ideologies and ambitions, may lack the political will to do so. Perhaps the voters who trusted them in 2006 should have a theme song of their own: “Won’t Get Fooled Again.”

Copyright © 2006

Cheney vs. Pelosi

Cheney's position is binary drivel in a dynamic world, which is PROPAGANDA, a two part language of intentional contention to frame dialog of infinite diversity into only two parts, for and against. Binary language is the language of fools and idiots and we must not allow ourselves to be pulled into this REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA. We must get above it and give them full credit for their efforts.

In reference to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba:

Land held by the United States either by territory or treaty or as property by lease or any other means and occupied by the United States should be subject to Habeas Corpus in the same manner as the Continental United States, because by either treaty or conquest the land has been made a part of the United States. To say otherwise, all the territories of the United States would not be subject to Habeas Corpus and all land occupied under treaty rights wouldn't be subject to Habeas Corpus and this would be a ludicrous position.

The courts agreed with Hitler too; when the courts are packed with political operatives it becomes irrelevant whether or not the courts agree. In a democracy the courts must be diverse and representative of the population, when the courts are engineered to represent a polarized view of one political party, decisions become irrelevant to anyone other than the political party controlling the court.

Thomas G. Miller and Martha A. Miller

Too Many DLC Republicans Lite in the Democratic Party

According to the Right Wing Web, there are 45 members that are DLC "counterintelligence" Republican members on the Democratic Party's Left Wing side of the House of Representatives and 20 DLC "counterinelligence" Republican members of the Left Wing side of the Senate. WE THE PEOPLE need to learn who these secret members of the SECRET "counterintelligence" Republicans are, since they are purporting to be WE THE PEOPLE'S representatives, but are funded by Right Wing Corporate and Capital interests.

The DLC Right Wing Lobbying DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL Group founded by the now CEO, Al From, an original aide to former Representative Gillis Long (D-LA), who started the DLC organization along with Bruce Reed, now President of the DLC organization, who was originally a deputy campaign manager for President Clinton, and Will Marshall, who was originally former Rep. Gillis Long's policy analyst and speech writer; now President of their PPI Right Wing policy analysts that work directly with the DLC.

Not one of the original fungal members who, with Right Wing funding, originated and promoted the private Democratic Leadership Council's Right Wing lobbying group have ever been presented to and elected by the people. All congressional members who have been deceived from the people's interests into joining the DLC need to admit it and pull out or be removed from their positions of representation of the people in Congress in the Primary Election Process.

It has been reported in the news that Primary Elections are being changed and may start as early as January 1, 2008. WE THE PEOPLE will have to stay in contact with our state Election Boards to know when the Primary Elections will be held in our state. It is of utmost importance that WE THE PEOPLE vote out all members of the DLC.

If we can't find out who the secret DLC members are, we will have to vote out all members who will not specifically deny the DLC.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534

The DLC is the problem in the Democratic Party and the ONLY problem in the Democratic Party.

Of the 20 DLC Senators, the following are the known DLC Right Wing Senators:

ARKANSAS -------- Blanche L. Lincoln –- DLC Senator
DELAWARE -------- Thomas R. Carper –- DLC Senator
INDIANA ----------- Evan Bayh –--------- DLC Senator
LOUISIANA -------- Mary Landrieu –----- DLC Senator
MASSACHUSETTS --John F. Kerry –------ DLC Senator
MICHIGAN --------- Debbie Stabenow --–DLC Senator
NEBRASKA --------- Benjamin E. Nelson- DLC Senator
NEW YORK --------- Hilary Clinton –------DLC Senator
CONNECTICUT ----- Joe Lieberman –-----DLC Senator

There are 11 unknown DLC Right Wing Senators to find.

Of the 45 DLC Representatives, these are the known DLC Right Wing Represenatives:

ALABAMA --------- Artur Davis --------- DLC Representative
CALIFORNIA ----- Ellen Tauscher------ DLC Representative
WASHINGTON –---Adam Smith -------- DLC Representative
WISCONSIN –----- Ron Kind ------------DLC Representative

There are 41 unknown DLC Right Wing Representatives to find.

All talk is about everything except the removal of the DLC and the DLC removal from the Democratic Party is the ONLY thing that is of any importance to WE THE PEOPLE. If the DLC gets in the Project For The New American Century WILL BE CONTINUED.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

Looking through the Project For the New American Century site you will find the following link where you will come to understand if you read the information in it that the Project For the New American Century is a war project that went into motion by the current Right Wing administration at the time Reagan was elected. The reason Reagan couldn't remember anything relative to the Iran Contra Scandal was because he was the tyrant. The same Right Wing members of this Right Wing administration have a problem with their memory as well when it comes to responsibility for their tyranny.

www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm">http://="http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm">www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

The Republi-lites are wanting us to believe that there is nothing they can do about the Iraq "war".
Horse hocky!
There is something called "fenced funding". Having been in the system, I have run into it more than once.
Fenced funds are funds designated by Congress during the budget process, for specific purposes. For instance, in the past, Congress fenced funding to buy fancy fighter jets, and prevented the Army from buying much needed deuce and a half and 5-ton trucks.
If they can fence funding to give money to their pet contractors, they can fence funding to keep Bush from increasing the number of soldiers going to Iraq, while taking care of the ones who are over there.
They can fence funding to prevent no-bid war profiteers from using up money for Iraq that should be going to protect and care for our soldiers. By fencing funding in this case, they can demand competitive bidding, and strict oversights on military contractors.
There is a lot Congress can do to check Bush and balance the treatment of our kids over there.
They need to get off their butts and do it!!!
If they don't start acting like Democrats and not Republicans, then they need to be fired!
Pelosi keeps prating about "protecting the incumbents".
Her concern needs to be with protecting the American People and not the incumbent Republi-lites, who are stabbing the party and the People in their backs.
If these incumbents don't take care of their constituents, they need to be fired, bottom line!
2008's coming, fire the Republi-lites!

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

One more time for the Statement of Principles of the Project For The New American Century. Notice the signatures of the Right Wing administration. Now who is in charge of the World Bank as planned is??????? Paul Wolfowitz, who is making it impossible for small countries to get help.

And Dick Cheney has been in the plan from the beginning, he's not going give up on their planned war in Iraq and Iran now.

It is plain to see that this war didn't happen because of terrorist, it was planned prior to any terrorist attack, and that 9/11/01 attack was toooooo convenient and didn't slow them down a second.

Be that as it may, the only way to do anything about this mess is to kick-start Congress into acting like a the co-equal branch of government it is, and not just a Greek chorus to the Bushiato's machinations.
The election coming up is going to be vital. We need to start preparing now, working for candidates of our choice.
Pelosi's remark about "protecting our incumbents" is disturbing because there are far too many Democratic incumbents who are Republi-lites, who have stabbed the party in the back in the past, and will continue to do so in the future, if they're not fired and replaced with honest politicians.
We need to go after not just Republicans, but Republi-lites sell-outs in order to take both Congress and this country back from the oligarchs.
I don't think we'll see any campaign reform or a halt to "free" trade sell-outs until we do tip the balance in the Congress.
It ain't going to be easy but the fat lady's onlybarely started to warm up in the wings.

Protesters greet Cheney
Demonstrators scuffle with Sydney police prior to Vice President Dick Cheney's arrival.
Watch the video:

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2007/02/22/vo.australia.protestors.channel9

HERE IS A LIST of the war conspirators that signed the "Statement of Principles" for the "Project For the New American Century" WAR PLAN June 3, 1997:

Ellliot Abrams http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/969 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams – Gary Bauer http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1022 http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/bauer/bauer_body.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Bauer -- William J. Bennett http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1034 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bennett -- Jeb Bush http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1065 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush -- Dick Cheney http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1072 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney -- Eliot A. Cohen http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1100 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Cohen -- Midge Decter http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1114 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midge_Decter -- Paula Dobriansky http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/dobriansky/dobriansky.html http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1120 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Dobriansky -- Steve Forbes http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1150 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Forbes -- Aaron Friedberg http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1154 -- Francis Fukuyama http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1156 -- Frank Gaffney http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1183 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney -- Fred C. Ikle http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1232 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Ikle -- Donald Kagan http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1239 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Kagan -- Zalmay Khalilzad http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1249 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Lewis_Libbey -- Norman Podhoretz http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1320 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Podhoretz -- Dan Quayle http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1322 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle -- Peter W. Rodman http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1342 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rodman -- Stephen P. Rosen http://zfacts.com/p/165.html http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_P._Rosen -- Henry S. Rowen http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1344 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=17163 -- Donald Rumsfeld http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1346 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld -- Vin Weber http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1381 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_Weber -- George Weigel http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1383 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weigel -- Paul Wolfowitz http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1390 http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/wolfowitz/wolfowitz.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz

This plan's agreement was signed June 3, 1997, which was four years and 3 months before 9/11/01.

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/pnac_neo-con_artists.html

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1475

Why give a fighting soldier only three bullets???????

Apparently Bush is trying to get rid of the majority population the easy way, because I was listening to Cindy Sheehan talking about some of the troops telling her that they were being given only three shells as their supply of ammunition to protect themself and defend their turf, which doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Why send new troops? Is the troops for appearance only? What good is a troop without a bullet? After all the military thinkers are relying on bombs from safe locations. The troops aren't mattering to the Bush administration. All this supporting the troops is hog wash, if what Cindy Sheehan stated is true, and I believe she spoke what she was told. No way do I want my son or daughter, or anyone else's son or daughter having no more than 3 bullets as his/her supply of ammunition in a war, war zone, war area or Iraq -- making him/her a sitting duck for whatever; therefore this war is talked about seriously by the talking heads on television, but is not being taken seriously on the ground by the self involved powers that be, and this war appears to be only a means of destroying the United States and Middle East populations, and making boocoos of money for the wealthy military industrial complex's corporations and capitalists.

If one buys a mean dog for protection, but ties up and muzzles the dog, what good will that dog be for protection?

There are no front lines to this war. Any soldier there should have ammunition and if a soldier is not needed any more than to be given three bullets, send him home.

For once, I agree with Tony Blair , send the troops home. I am of the opinion that ALL THE TROOPS SHOULD COME HOME.

Osama bin Laden has a kidney malfunction requiring dialysis and the CIA or FBI could get him anytime if they wanted him. THEY DO NOT WANT OSAMA BIN LADEN. The Osama bin Laden story is all a bunch of hype. When are people going to realize this???????

come_back_JFK:

Have you considered thinking dynamically instead of in a binary manner??????? WE THE PEOPLE know there is no winning and losing, so you need to give up on the propaganda of either or.

There are infinite solutions -- quit warring!!!! It is time to use our minds to find some of the infinite solutions. The one thing for certain we do know is that war is NOT the solution.

All the warring leaders need to be put together in a room to arrive at a solution and left there until the solution is found, because there are infinite solutions in a dynamic world.

There is no way one can tell another country, or another person, for that matter, how to think, one has to be learned enough to know this. I say to you, try to arrive at this position. Get past TWO CHOICES -- DO IT -- IT'S A DYNAMIC WORLD.

Well now, Some interesting point of views out there. Interesting how the Demoocratic party has spies among them. Why can't you just get ride of the DLC? Interesting point on kick starting congress into action. So true. I was lurking on the GOP site and they stated that the Democrats would not open the floor for debate in the senat on the troop increase. If that is true why not.

The war in Iraqi. Maybe the Democrates want the Republians to screw up some more to strengthen thier party. I see a lot of fingure pointing from both sides and both sides are correct. MarthaA is correct in stating that you cannot make someone do what you want but you can lead them in the direction that you want them to go. A sign of a good leader.
The truth of what is happening in Iraqi is a bit of a mystery for most of the country. I have not heard what Bush is trying to do or what is being said to the Iraqi government. If you know please enlighten me. At the same time I am not seeing much of the Democrates stepping up with a plan, Except for Hillary, to end the war. So please enlighten me about what you are doing. A strait forward answer is all I am looking for.

A sign of a good leader is one who can openly take suggestions and then make a decision.
A sign of a bad leader is a one sided person that dose what they want regardless of other suggestions.
Which one of these types of leaders are the Democrats?

Get out of this country, before it will be too late! The Democrats is not doing they job, the job we’re asked them to do. They can’t or they don’t want to stop this madman and his horde to destroy this GREAT country! Get out, run before is too late! I will.

I am furious with the Democrats. I voted Democrat. I always vote Democrat. The Democrats have a majority. They are doing NOTHING! A lot of speeches. Bush should be impeached. That is the only way he will be stopped. Impeach them all. They are the worst thing ever to happen to this country. They are looting the Treasury and sending our soldiers over as targets in a "Police Action" in Iraq. Afghanistan is more of the same. Still they want to sell our ports and they do nothing about Radical Muslims in THIS country.
We kept Communist out, why are they different?
Bush is STILL grinning and spinning. YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING REAL! GET HIM OUT! PUT HIM ON TRIAL! PUT CHENEY AND RICE ON TRIAL!STOP THIS NOW!

Plain and simple, Georgie needs to wake up and smell the f**king coffee. The ONLY way we will get the soldiers out of Iraq is by putting a DEMOCRAT in the White House in 2008.

JOHN EDWARDS FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008!

The United States Should NOT be taking CANADIAN Prisoners -- Canada is capable of housing their own prisoners.

Majid and his nine-year old son Kevin are Iranian immigrants currently being held at the Hutto detention center. They’ve been forcibly detained since their plane was forced to make an emergency landing in Puerto Rico as they made their way to Canada. Kevin says: “I want to be free. I want go to outside. I want to go home to Canada.”

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/23/1532252

The following is a transcript of Amy Goodman's interview with this family:

AMY GOODMAN: I’m going to break in for one minute, because we have just gotten a call from the Hutto detention facility. We're joined on the phone by an Iranian immigrant named Majid, from inside the Hutto Detention Center in Taylor, Texas. He, his wife, his nine-year-old son Kevin have been held at the center for the past nineteen days. Majid, your story is quite a remarkable one. Can you tell us how you ended up at this Texas jail?

MAJID: Hello. Thanks for taking my call. I was on my way to go to Toronto, Canada, and my plane was -- after three hours in the flight, somebody died on the plane and had an emergency landing to Costa Rica. After that, they said everybody should come out. After that, we went out. Immigration, they said you need to have American visa. We had no American visa. And they hold us over there --

AMY GOODMAN: Now, just to be clear, you were never planning to end up in the United States, is that right? You were flying to Canada, but another passenger on the plane had a heart attack, and so you guys had a forced landing in Puerto Rico, and when you had to come out of the plane, while he was taken off the plane, that's when they took you?

MAJID: Yes. This happened, yes -- was a Canadian Zoom Airline, and our ticket was direct from Guyana to Toronto. And this happened. They hold us -- my son is Canadian -- hold child is nine-and-a-half years old, and they put us in detention in Puerto Rico. And from Monday to Friday, I was in the jail in Puerto Rico between criminal people, and my wife and son was other place. We had no news from each other from Monday morning until Friday at noon, until we see each other in a Puerto Rico airport. After that, they brought us here to Hutto Detention Center, and here we are in same part, but different room. My wife and my son is room, but it’s totally inside the room, uncovered toilet. My son has asthma, and he’s very bad and still comes here. It’s very horrible here. And we are in very bad situation. We need help. We need the people help me --

JUAN GONZALEZ: Majid, in other words, basically, what reason did they give you for holding you if you never intended to enter the United States at all? What reason did they give for locking you up?

MAJID: Because they said, “You have an American visa?” That's why you have to stay here. Just plane was waiting one hour for us, but they didn't let us pass. A few officers came. They said Immigration officers -- six, seven -- they said, “We’re going to send you, but let us make decision.” After that, they called the police chief. He came there. He said, “Let me think five minutes.” After five minutes, he came, he said, “I’m going to send you to Canada, but I’m afraid to lose my job. But usually we have to send with your plane, but we keep you here. America is much better than Canada. Here you have safer place. We send you to hotel, and after a few days, you're going to be free.” But they broke their promise. That's why they keep us here, and we have very bad situation here.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Do you know whether any other passengers on your plane were also detained in the same way, or was your family the only one, as far as you can tell?

MAJID: Only my family. No other passenger.

AMY GOODMAN: I just want to say to our listeners and viewers, we are not giving your full name, we’re not showing your face at your request. You did apply for political asylum in Canada in the past when you lived there for ten years. You were ultimately denied, sent back to Iran. And what happened when you were sent back to Iran, you and your wife?

MAJID: Yes. In December 2005, we sent to Iran, whole family, when my Canadian son born. And all documents -- the immigration officer gave all our documents to the captain of plane. After that, in Italy, we went with the Alitalia Airline. In Italy, police came to plane. They took us to [inaudible] room in the transit of Italy, and after that, again, they put us in the plane and give all documents to the captain of Alitalia again. We went to Iran, and in Iran, the plane’s captain said, “You have to sit until the police come to take you.” All passengers went out, and four Iranian secret police came in the plane, and he got all documents from the captain, and they took us in the airport in the secret police office. We were there for a few hours, four or five hours, in the same room.

After that, they separate us. They took me to other place, unknown place. I was in Iran a small cell for six months, and lots of torture and hitting. Now I have physical problem and knee problem and lots of things. And they took my wife to other prison, where we have no news from each other. And for six months, my wife was one year and one month in the prison, and she [inaudible] -- after she was free she [inaudible] the child, and because they [inaudible] him, and she was [inaudible] two, three time in the jail. And it's a very bad situation. But we had no news from each other. They told my wife, because your husband, you have to cooperate with us.

AMY GOODMAN: They said they killed you?

MAJID: Yeah, they a few times told. One time they told her, “He's in coma.” The other time, they said, “Already he was killed.” And, you know, many times they play with her. After one month, they free her in the street at nighttime. They did with me, too, after six months, a lot of torture. And this one, they free me in the street out of the town with closed eyes. And I didn't see anybody, but they took me in daytime some day in winter -- you know, they take my pants off to put in very cold water. They already broke the ice, they put in the water, and they hit me every day, hitting me.

And when I came out, I was less than thirty kilograms, my weight. And my wife was different, six months was under psychologist’s medication over that. And after free, I should register two times a week, every Sunday and Thursday. And when I took -- they took us over there, they took me over there again. One week, they put me in detention, and the other time, again three days. And after that, one guard told me, “I’m going to help you.” After that, he called me, said, “OK, your future is very dangerous. You have to leave. Otherwise, you are in big trouble. I don't know what will happen to you and your family.” That's why we decided and we escaped from there.

AMY GOODMAN: And you tried to go to Canada. Can you put your son Kevin on? He's standing next to you, nine years old?

MAJID: Yes. Just hold on, please?

AMY GOODMAN: Thank you. We're talking to Majid and Kevin in the Hutto Detention Center that’s run by the Corrections Corporation of America in Taylor, Texas.

KEVIN: Hello.

AMY GOODMAN: Hi, Kevin. How are you?

KEVIN: Not good.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell us the situation you're in right now and what you want to happen right now?

KEVIN: Excuse me, I didn't hear you.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you describe where you are right now?

KEVIN: I’m in US jail right now.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Kevin, where are you staying at night? Are you with your parents, or are they locking you up separately?

KEVIN: I’m with my parents, but we’re in separate rooms.

JUAN GONZALEZ: In separate rooms?

KEVIN: Yeah.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And are they letting you -- are you getting any kind of education, or are you just sitting in your cell all day?

KEVIN: We’re sitting in the cell all day.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you want to do now, Kevin?

KEVIN: I want to be free. I want to go outside, and I want to go to school. I want to be in my homeland: Canada.

AMY GOODMAN: You want to go home to Canada?

KEVIN: What?

AMY GOODMAN: You want to go home to Canada?

KEVIN: Yeah. My home is in Canada.

AMY GOODMAN: Were you with your parents in Iran?

KEVIN: My parents -- what?

AMY GOODMAN: Were you with your mother and father in Iran?

KEVIN: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: And you were coming on the plane?

KEVIN: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: What are the people telling you? Can you go to Canada?

KEVIN: Hmm?

AMY GOODMAN: What are the guards telling you? Will they release you?

KEVIN: I forgot what they were saying, but they told us some stuff. I forgot what they were saying to us.

JUAN GONZALEZ: How are the other children there? Are you spending time with any of the other children?

KEVIN: No.

AMY GOODMAN: They don't let you spend time with the other children?

KEVIN: No. I’m sleeping beside the washroom, and I can't -- and I’m upstairs. I can't go to the washroom all the time. And there's a lot of smell coming out from the washroom. And the food is garbage. And the school is very bad. I can't learn anything good. And I have asthma, and I got sick in here. I can't stay here anymore.

AMY GOODMAN: Kevin, you said you're sleeping next to the bathroom?

KEVIN: Yeah. And it's not a separate room. It's right beside the bed. And I’m sleeping beside the wall, and my back gets sick and it hurts.

AMY GOODMAN: How is your mother?

KEVIN: My mother is sick.

AMY GOODMAN: Kevin, can you put your father back on the phone?

KEVIN: OK.

AMY GOODMAN: Kevin is nine years old. He's a Canadian citizen, came from Iran with his parents. They were flying over the United States, when the plane had to land in Puerto Rico because a passenger had a heart attack, and when they landed, the Majid family -- we're not using their real name -- was taken off the flight. Majid, have you talked to the Canadian consulate, and what is your hope when you get to Canada, if you get to Canada?

MAJID: Yeah, on Monday, they came here. They said -- they come here, and we spoke to each other. They mostly asked my wife and Kevin, “What's your food, and what kind of food they give you? Are you in same room with family?” My son said no, because he said, I was told -- “All your family in one room?” -- he said, “No, we are in separate room, and the toilet is inside, the uncovered toilet, in the room.” And only they said [inaudible] said, “You’re going to help us?” They said, “We don't know. You have to speak with your lawyer.” After that, just regarding information, my son’s birth certificate information, and they left. And two days ago, I tried to call them in consul, and no response, because he was to be phone. I tried again, but I couldn't reach him. No more information I have.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Majid, now, do you have a lawyer who is helping you? And do you have a scheduled hearing anytime in the future on your case?

MAJID: Yeah. I have lawyers that’s from immigration clinic here. They’re students. They’re working. They are very good people. And no hearing. Two or three time, I requested for hearing, but no response so far in the past seventeen, eighteen days here. No response. We don't know what's going to happen for us.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you want to stay in the United States?

MAJID: You know, we escaped from Iran, OK? We escaped to be safe and free with my family. But our plan was in Canada. And I don't know, they keep us here. Anyway, we want safe and free, Canada or US. If Canada give us a visa, we go there; we go to US, if here, we’ll stay here.

AMY GOODMAN: Why are you afraid to use your full name or to show your face?

MAJID: Because everybody knows the Iran. The Iran’s -- like this, we are in very bad situation, because I don't trust here immigration, because the first time they said lots of things to us, but they broke their promise. They said you're going to happen this, this, but now they said we're going to deported. OK, maybe we deported. And we are like this. We are in 100% in danger. If our whole full name goes, it's 200% in danger, because especially United States -- if you go from other country, you have less risk with government. If you go from United States, because they said “US is our enemy,” they said, Iranian authorities says, OK? But that's why we are in more and more trouble if we go back, because they will say, “Why you go to US and this happen?”

AMY GOODMAN: Joshua Bardavid is an attorney that we are sitting with in the New York studio. When you listen to this story, what are your thoughts?

JOSHUA BARDAVID: Unfortunately, this is -- what he is experiencing is a very common experience. It is the reflexive use of detention for asylum seekers. The Majid family, they’re survivors -- from what he’s describing, he’s a survivor of torture. He was detained in Iran. He is seeking freedom, in this case, in Canada, arrives in the United States and is placed back in detention. The re-traumatizing effects of being placed back in detention cannot be underestimated. You have a child who is sleeping in what was a jail cell for a maximum-security prison that has been converted, but they still leave the exposed toilet, you know, sitting in the middle of their room. There's no privacy. With other children, he's in a room separate from his parents. Now, but the door may be not locked at night, but that door is certainly shut, and it’s a steel heavy door. They are placed in a prison. There's no doubt that this is a prison. And what is particularly troubling about this is that this was designed for the purpose of holding families, yet they made a conscious decision to maintain the facility as a prison, to leave the barbed wire, to leave the doors, to leave the environment as a prison.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And what about the issue -- I don't know if you've found with other of your clients -- given the fact that you do have young children like this, you’d think there would be some kind of process for expedited hearing to find out -- have an immigration judge review the case, but they've been there now, what, more than two weeks now.

JOSHUA BARDAVID: Yeah, that's definitely another troubling aspect. In order to sentence somebody in the United States to two weeks in jail, you would need to have guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers. In order for the Majit family to spend an additional two weeks in jail, it simply could take an administrative delay. This is one of the problems.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about the role of these private prison companies. The Hutto facility is run by CCA, the Corrections Corporation of America. In fact, the jail is named after CCA’s cofounder, T. Don Hutto. I want to play a comment made by William Andrews, the chair of the CCA board, during a conference call with investors two weeks ago.

WILLIAM ANDREWS: I don't want to leave anybody with the impression that these facilities that are being reported in the paper of ICE are in any way substandard. In fact, they are above standard, and the reports come from special interest groups that are attempting to do away with privatization and the whole immigration situation. And, you know, we welcome anybody to visit our facilities. And the family facility, particularly, at T. Don Hutto is almost like a home.

AMY GOODMAN: That was William Andrews, the chair of the board of the Corrections Corporation of America, describing the conditions at the Hutto jail as “almost like a home.” Michelle Brane in Washington, D.C., your response?

MICHELLE BRANE: Well, as I mentioned already, and has been made very clear by your other guests, it is very clearly a prison that is being used to house inmates, and it has no resemblance to a home. I mean, there’s sofas. There are plastic sofas and TVs, but that’s about it. And one of the things that's very disturbing about this model that they’re using is that there are alternatives. As I mentioned before, there are pre-hearing release programs that could be used.

There’s a whole range of ways to ensure that people appear for hearings, that they don't abscond and that enforcement of our immigration laws can be accomplished without resorting to these drastic measures. And that's one of the things that we've really been stressing in the report, is that, you know, as you've heard from the responses, in the White House response and the ICE response to our report, and to other complaints about the Hutto facility, they are presenting it as an alternative of either a facility like this or complete separation, into different buildings and different centers, of entire families. And there is a wide range of other alternatives in between those two.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you both for being with us. I also want to thank Majid and Kevin. And we will certainly continue to cover their story and update you on the situation. For one brief moment, because they called in in the middle of you describing your own clients, if you could briefly finish, Joshua, and then we're going to go to Raymondville, to something that is, well, a tent city, a prison camp for immigrants in the tip of Texas. But very briefly.

JOSHUA BARDAVID: Well, my clients now, the Hazahza family, who are being held in Haskell, which is a county facility and is a maximum-security facility, this is an entire family that again is being separated in this center in extremely harsh conditions, that includes isolation of a seventeen-year-old, who has now turned eighteen, but at the time he was seventeen when he was placed in solitary confinement. You have the -- there is physical threats. There is strip searches as a common tool of discipline. And it is a prison. And this is an ongoing problem with intermingling immigration detainees with criminal violent offenders in the United States.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And, again, the reason for their detention is they’re -- are they asylum seekers?

JOSHUA BARDAVID: They were asylum seekers. They lost their asylum hearing, but the US government has been unable to remove them, so they do not know what to do with them, so they placed them in this facility.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you, Joshua Bardavid, for joining us.

Steven Cook:

Here you go again, trying to make dynamics binary with the "either or" solution. There is dynamics for solutions within the Grassroots Democrats, but the DLC Democrats are nearly the same as the Republicans, they follow tje Republicans right along.

The following statement from David Rolland at the big blogger Clinton get together in NYC 6/23/06 as posted on Blog For America "D.C. March Against Troop Escalation, DFA is there!" - Jan. 27, 2007:

"In a nutshell, he [President Clinton} expressed regret over precisely what I didn’t like about those laws. He [President Clinton] regrets the “social” impacts of NAFTA. The agreement, he [President Clinton] told me, was a fait accompli, but he [ President Clinton] said he [President Clinton] was certain Al Gore would beat George W. Bush and that Gore would fix it. He [President Clinton] regrets the media-merger mania that resulted from the Telecom Act and seemed to blame it, at least partly, on the dot-com bust. It was a case of unintended consequences. “I didn’t see that coming,” he [President Clinton] said." (I would love to have had time to press him on that one.) "And he [President Clinton] didn’t like welfare reform’s provision to boot mothers off the dole after five cumulative years. Perhaps that can be altered when the law is reauthorized this year, he [President Clinton] said." (Not likely.)"

Hilary Clinton is a DLC leader and will follow the PNAC program, which is against the general population of the United States. I expect President Clinton said all that because he thought it would help his wife.

No general citizen, the grassroots voter, should vote for Hilary Clinton. President Clinton knew what he was doing and was the one that caused all of our jobs to be outsourced to other countries and the industrial base in our country to be minimized, which is exactly what his wife will follow. They are trying to make a two class country, the wealthy and the working, which is not democracy at all.

We must run from Hilary Clinton. Do Not Vote For Hilary Clinton, what she says and what she will do will not be the same any more that the Republicans.

My favorite for President is Dennis Kucinich. Have you seen his beautiful and intelligent wife. She would make a great First Lady. There is one thing we know about Dennis Kucinich, and it is that he did not lose his mind and vote for propaganda, which is what all the other contestants for the presidency did.

Cheney's Role Dominates Closing Arguments at Libby Trial
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022307R.shtml

Friday 23 February 2007

It was the defense attorney representing I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby who first told jurors during closing arguments in the perjury and obstruction-of-justice trial Tuesday that the government believes Vice President Dick Cheney told Libby to leak the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to a New York Times reporter in July 2003 to undermine the credibility of her husband, a critic of the Iraq War.

Additional information about what the prosecution believes Cheney's role in the leak may have been surfaced in closing arguments this week. The jury enters its fourth full day of deliberations Monday to decide whether Libby is guilty or innocent of five felonies. Libby's attorney, Theodore Wells, told jurors that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his deputy have been attempting to build a case of conspiracy against the vice president and Libby and that the prosecution believes Libby may have lied to federal investigators and a grand jury to protect Cheney.

At issue is whether a set of talking points Cheney dictated in July 2003, that the vice president's former chief of staff was instructed to discuss with the media, included information about Plame. The discussions with the media were supposed to be centered around Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, and the fact that he accused the White House of misrepresenting intelligence related to Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium from Niger, according to testimony by Cathie Martin, Cheney's former communications director.

Wilson had traveled to Niger in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium to build an atomic bomb. He reported back to the CIA that the allegations were baseless. But, the claims were cited as fact in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. Wilson spent months criticizing the White House's use of the Niger claims in background interviews with reporters before publishing an opinion column in the New York Times on July 6, 2003, saying he was the special envoy who was sent to Niger to check out the intelligence. He asserted that the administration knowingly misled the public and Congress into war. Wilson's criticisms set off a chain of events that eventually led to the exposing of his wife's identity.

During the trial, Martin testified that she was present when Cheney dictated talking points about Wilson, but Wells said in his closing arguments that there was a clear implication by the prosecution that Martin may not have been privy to some of the private conversations that took place between Cheney and Libby regarding Plame.

"Now, I think the government, through its questions, really tried to put a cloud over Vice President Cheney," Libby's attorney Theodore Wells told jurors Tuesday, according to a transcript of the closing arguments obtained by Truthout. "During their questioning of Martin, the prosecutors questioned Ms. Martin: 'Well, you weren't with Mr. Libby and the vice president all the time. Some things could have happened when you weren't there.' And the clear suggestion by the questions were, well, maybe there was some kind of skullduggery, some kind of scheme between Libby and the vice president going on in private, but that's unfair."

Rebutting the defense's assertion that Cheney was not behind the leak, Fitzgerald told jurors, "You know what? [Wells] said something here that we're trying to put a cloud on the vice president. We'll talk straight. There is a cloud over the vice president. He sent Libby off to [meet with former New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting, the two hour meeting, the defendant talked about the wife [Plame]. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened."

Fitzgerald's impassioned presentation to the jury Tuesday suggests that he strongly believes Cheney instructed Libby to leak Plame's identity to Miller in July 2003. "If you think that the vice president and the defendant 'Scooter' Libby weren't talking about [Plame] during the week where the vice president writes that [Plame] sent [Wilson] on a junket, in [Wilson's] July 6 column, the vice president moves the number one talking point, 'not clear who authorized [Wilson's Niger trip], if you think that's a coincidence, well, that makes no sense," Fitzgerald told jurors.

Prior to Fitzgerald's rebuttal, Wells had told jurors that Libby's meeting with Miller came at the behest of President Bush, for the sole purpose of providing her with information from the highly classified National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's nuclear ambitions. The leak of the NIE to Miller was aimed at beating back Wilson's criticism of the administration's use of prewar intelligence - not to disclose Plame's identity.

"The reason he took two hours to have lunch with Ms. Miller is that Mr. Libby understood that the vice president of the United States had directed him to go meet with Ms. Miller and that the president, President Bush, was behind it too," Wells said. "Not to say anything about Valerie [Plame] Wilson, but to discuss with Judith Miller, of the New York Times, information that President Bush had privately, lawfully declassified concerning the National Intelligence Estimate.... Now this is basically a secret mission that three people in the world know, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and 'Scooter' Libby. Because he goes and does what he is asked to do by the president and the vice president and meets with [Miller] for two hours."

But Fitzgerald fired back, telling jurors there may have been a discussion between Cheney and Libby shortly before the Miller meeting in which Cheney and Libby discussed whether to disclose Plame's identity to Miller. Furthermore, Fitzgerald told the jury that Cheney rewrote the talking points on July 8, 2003, the day Libby met with Miller, during a meeting he had with Libby and Martin, and that the number one issue for the vice president became who was responsible for sending Wilson on his trip to Niger.

"The vice president picked Judith Miller for a reason," Fitzgerald told the jury. "They went to the St. Regis Hotel for two hours for a reason. The best way to get a story out is to leak an exclusive. That's one of the times [July 8, 2003], the defendant shared the employment of Wilson's wife [Plame] with the CIA with Judith Miller. There was a focus of who sent Wilson [to Niger]. There was an obsession of Wilson. They felt the wife was responsible."

"The first time in his government career Mr. Libby ever heard anyone talk about declassifying something privately for the president to the vice president, and then given to Miller," Fitzgerald added. "Whatever is going on between the vice president and the defendant, that cloud was there. That's not something that we put there. That cloud is something we just can't pretend isn't there."

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.

-------

***VOLUNTARY MERCENARIES ARE NOT GETTING RESPECT***

AP: Nearly 800 Iraq Contractors Killed
By Michelle Roberts
The Associated Press

Friday 23 February 2007

In a largely invisible cost of the war in Iraq, nearly 800 civilians working under contract to the Pentagon have been killed and more than 3,300 hurt doing jobs normally handled by the U.S. military, according to figures gathered by The Associated Press.

Exactly how many of these employees doing the Pentagon's work are Americans is uncertain. But the casualty figures make it clear that the Defense Department's count of more than 3,100 U.S. military dead does not tell the whole story.

"It's another unseen expense of the war," said Thomas Houle, a retired Air Force reservist whose brother-in-law died while driving a truck in Iraq. "It's almost disrespectful that it doesn't get the kind of publicity or respect that a soldier would."

Employees of defense contractors such as Halliburton, Blackwater and Wackenhut cook meals, do laundry, repair infrastructure, translate documents, analyze intelligence, guard prisoners, protect military convoys, deliver water in the heavily fortified Green Zone and stand sentry at buildings - often highly dangerous duties almost identical to those performed by many U.S. troops.

The U.S. has outsourced so many war and reconstruction duties that there are almost as many contractors (120,000) as U.S. troops (135,000) in the war zone.

The insurgents in Iraq make little if any distinction between the contractors and U.S. troops.

In January, four contractors for Blackwater were killed when their helicopter was downed by gunfire in Baghdad. In 2004, two Americans and a British engineer were kidnapped and decapitated. That same year, a mob of insurgents ambushed a supply convoy escorted by contractors, burning and mutilating the guards' bodies and stringing up two of them from a bridge.

But when contractors are killed or wounded, the casualties are off the books, in a sense.

While the Defense Department issues a press release whenever a soldier or Marine dies, the AP had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain figures on pre-2006 civilian deaths and injuries from the Labor Department, which tracks workers' compensation claims.

By the end of 2006, the Labor Department had quietly recorded 769 deaths and 3,367 injuries serious enough to require four or more days off the job.

Questions about the casualties and the U.S. government's extensive use of contractors were referred by the Pentagon to U.S. Embassy spokesman Lou Fintor in Baghdad, who did not return repeated calls or e-mails as recently as Friday.

Although contractors were widely used in Vietnam for support and reconstruction tasks, they have never before represented such a large portion of the U.S. presence in a war zone or accounted for so many security and military-like jobs, experts say.

Some of the workers are former U.S. military personnel. Some are foreigners. The companies and the U.S. government say they do not keep track of how many are Americans.

The contractors are paid handsomely for the risks they take, with some making $100,000 or more per year, mostly tax-free - at least six times more than a new Army private, a rank likely to be driving a truck or doing some other unskilled work.

The difference in pay can create ill will between the contractors and U.S. troops.

"When they are side-by-side doing the same job, there is some resentment," said Rick Saccone, who worked as an intelligence contractor in Baghdad for a year.

If the contractor deaths were added to the Pentagon's count of U.S. military casualties, the number of war dead would climb about 25 percent, from about 3,000 as of the end of 2006 to nearly 3,800.

If the contractors injured badly enough to be off the job for at least four days were added to the nearly 14,000 U.S. troops requiring medical air transport because of injuries, the injury total would rise by about the same percentage.

Early in the war, most of the casualties on the coalition side were military. But with the fall of Saddam Hussein, contractors flowed in behind the troops, and the number of deaths among the contract workers has been increasing each year.

Contractor deaths are less costly politically, said Deborah Avant, a political science professor at George Washington University.

"Every time there's a new thing that the U.S. government wants the military to do and there's not enough military to do it, contractors are hired," she said. "When we see the 3,000 service member deaths, there's probably an additional 1,000 deaths we don't see."

Houle's brother-in-law, Hector C. Patino, was driving a truck for a Halliburton subsidiary in the Green Zone when he was killed by friendly fire at an Australian checkpoint.

Patino, who served two tours in Vietnam, thought he was safe, said his mother, 82-year-old Flora Patino.

"I said, 'Hector, you're playing with fire,'" she recalled.

Associated Press writer Elizabeth White in San Antonio and Randy Herschaft in New York contributed to this report.

-------

I have always supported the Democratic Party ever since I first voted for Carter, but now I don't know who is telling the truth about Iraq any more. I tried to convince my son to not join the Marines, but supported his decision when he did.

He's now volunteered to return a fourth time to that country. He says that the media and the leaders of my party are not giving us the whole story. My son tells me that things are going better in Iraq than most people think but that we never hear about it.

I showed my son the above information and he just laughed at what it said. He showed me that the referenced story on Blair only talks about a newsweek poll which discusses "American" aproval ratings, but doesn't discuss that the Brittish are leaving because their area is secure. I trust my son's word, but then I read what Dean says and I wonder who has the right information.

Are my son's experiences in Iraq a lie? Is he lying to me so I won't worry about him going back? Is Dean only expressing a political opinion like my son says he is? My son says that the media and my party are guilty of spinning the news from Iraq as much as any Republican, but that us democrats are the people spinning the news in an attempt to lose the war.

It broke my heart to hear him say that. I don't want my son's sacrifices to be for nothing, but I also want him home safe. Who should I believe aout Iraq?

Mommy: Your son is not lying, in as much as he believes he is telling the truth.
He has either fallen for the rhetoric hook line and sinker, or knows better and is not admitting the truth out of a misguided sense of loyalty to the corps or to his buddies who are suffering and dying alongside of him. This attitude occurs more often in Marines than in Army personnel, but can show up in any branch of service, even the Air Force.
In 2001 when the Bush administration took over there was a directive that came down, basically saying that anyone who criticized the President, Vice-president, or the Secretary of Defense would be considered disloyal and it would be negatively reflected on their evaluation reports. It has created a very negative climate within the military in which you wonder who you should say anything to, or if, indeed, you should say anything. It is a very poisonous environment, and very much going against the traditions of the United States military.
Polls taken by the Military Times newspapers, have shown that many military personnel, even at the lowest echelon do not believe the administration's rhetoric. However there is a big difference between an anonymous poll and some kid standing up and admitting to something that could possibly make it tough on him if it got back to his commanding officer.
However, there are also a lot of these kids who refuse to believe even the evidence before them. If your son gets killed, or worse maimed in the line of duty, then the current command climate will reveal itself to you and to him in their ugly indifference.
Ask him about targeted pay raises, body armor, poor maintenance of equipment, and shoddy goods delivered by military contractors. Ask about his buddies who have been maimed in battle and how they are doing now. Especially any who have had medical discharges.
He may admit nothing, but it might start him thinking.
I saw these changes occur myself, and was still in when the decision was made to go into Iraq, which many military leaders foresaw as a disaster. I got retirement orders in hand before they initiated the stoploss. I felt guilty about not going with the kids I helped train, but as a retiree I can stand up for them, when they can't speak up for themselves.

Butte:

You are so right on. You know i actually have a lot of Marine friends who went on their mission to Iraq and you know..., the situation is trully the way you have described it. Now there's two of them who already came back from Iraq and of course when you ask them if they somehow... feel that they have been both tricked and used in an ugly by the Bush administration, they say that i don't know what it's like to be out there, and therefore i cant tell them that they are wrong or anything of the kind. Now,I have never ever told them they were wrong and God be my witness i never will, because i love them and know that they were doing their job, it was their Duty. Psycologically, i can somehow understand why they'd respond like that, because it's hard for them to believe that there was no threat, there was no WMD, there was no bringing democracy over to Iraq and there simply was no duty. But what there really was is oil and money. But they dont get the actuall point that no one has any intention to judge them for anything simply because we have neither authority nor right to do so, but what we are trying to do, what i'm personally trying to do is to help them understand who lied to them and for what matter. They went on their mission, they learned a lot of things how the Military works, and i was here and learned a lot of things how the Bush administration works. So what i'm trying to do is not critisize them in any way, but help them to see what's really going on. And that's exactly why i want all of our great troops to be home, and the sooner that happens the better.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2020458,00.html

Money talks for Bill Clinton as he pockets £20m in speaking fees

The man who 'never had a nickel' in the White House is now top earner on the chat circuit

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Saturday February 24, 2007
The Guardian

Talk is cheap, unless you are a charismatic former US president with a notorious personal history. Since leaving office in 2001, Bill Clinton has amassed an estimated $40m (£20m) from speaking fees.

Last year was his best yet, raking in between $9m and $10m from speeches around the world, from Australia to Egypt and Colombia.

Life after the White House has proved to be more lucrative than when he was in it. He earned in the region of $200,000 a year as president - a lot of money for most people but peanuts by the standards of the Washington elite: the company directors, lobbyists and lawyers with whom the Clintons mix.

Mr Clinton, who went into the White House with relatively modest means compared with most of his predecessors, left office an estimated $12m in debt from election campaigning and legal fees in relation to the Whitewater affair and the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Since becoming an ex-president, he has established himself as the world's best-paid after-dinner speaker, charging about $150,000 a speech. On one particular day, in Canada, he gave two speeches, earning $475,000.

He told an audience in Kentucky in the autumn: "I never had a nickel to my name until I got out of the White House, and now I'm a millionaire."

The latest figures for his earnings were published yesterday in the Washington Post, based on a financial disclosure statement filed by Hillary Clinton in her role as senator. The popularity of Mr. Clinton compared with other former presidents such as Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr., is mainly because of his charm, his role in the Middle East and Northern Ireland peace processes, and because he is one of the best political orators of his generation. But is also partly out of lingering curiosity over the Lewinsky affair.

Last year, he averaged almost a speech a day - 352 in total. His presence can attract people to an otherwise lack-luster conference of financiers, food distributors or the bio-technology industry. There are other bonuses, such as the possibility of being pictured alongside the former president.

When Vanity Fair ran an article several years ago about Mr. Clinton's earnings from speaking engagements, it became one of the best-thumbed magazines in Downing Street as the prime minister contemplated retirement.

Mr. Blair, who, like Mr. Clinton in the White House, sees himself as relatively poor in comparison with others in the milieu in which he lives, has a list of speech topics similar to Mr. Clinton's: Middle East peace negotiations, climate change, development issues.

Britain emerged as one of Mr. Clinton's most popular and lucrative destinations. He visited the UK and Ireland 10 times last year, earning $1,328,099.

Speeches organized by his golfing partner, Satty Singh, a wealthy businessman in Glasgow, brought in an estimated $900,000. Guests at the Burlington Hotel in Dublin paid $1,000 a head to hear him at a champagne lunch and reception. For $4,000 more, they had their photograph taken with him and an autographed copy of his memoir.

But he was only paid personally for about 20% of the speeches he made. Many of the others were for charities, mainly the William J Clinton Foundation, whose annual budget is $60m and which he runs to help the developing world, primarily to combat HIV/Aids. Some of the speeches were given for free.
His autobiography, My Life, published in 2004, generated $10m-$12m.

As well as raising money for himself and his charity, he is also raising funds for Hillary's presidential bid. This week, he sent out a mass email to try to raise $1m in a week for her campaign. His drawing power appears undiminished. Yesterday, three days in, it stood at $379,442.

Cashing in

· Rudolph Guiliani uses his image as New York's heroic 9/11 mayor to earn up to $100,000 (£51,000) per speech

· After leaving office in 1989, Ronald Reagan earned $2m for speeches in Japan

· Cherie Blair was criticized for earning £30,000 for a lecture on a private US trip in 2005 while Tony Blair visited the White House

To all Democrats,
I'm sure that most of you remember how the far right Republicans attacked John Kerry on flip flopping in 2004 when he ran for President, well now it's time to give Republicans a little dose of their medicine. As most of you already know Rudy Guliani (R) is running for President in 2008 but not enough people are aware of what a flip flopper Guliani really is. Rudy Guliani was for partial birth abortion before he was against it. If you do a search online such as Google and type in Rudy Guliani flip flops on partial birth abortion and when you see the results you'll see exactly what I mean. Here is where Democrats come in, Guliani is really fighting hard to become President in 2008 which is exactly why some serious activism by Democrats is needed. Please take a moment to write a letter to some newspapers and talk about how Guliani is a flip flopper when it comes to partial birth abortion. It's important to get others in the media to start talking about this. You can take action by clicking on the link below:

http://www.democrats.org/page/content/partybuilderLTE

*****

Guliani is a non-entity. He did a very Republican thing to become mayor of NYC. He told the voters what the polls showed they wanted to hear, and then sold them out. That is not flip-flopping, that is deception.
He was a lousy mayor who had everyone mad at him, until 9-11 when he basically did his job and made sure that the press saw him do what should have been expected of him.
Then the press promptly forgot the way he dissed the poor and the workers and was one of the most uncaring mayors New York City had and started calling him a hero. But it wasn't him, it was the NYC firemen, cops and medics who were the heros. They knew their jobs and they did them up to and beyond the call of duty. It's demeaning to these real heros that he runs on the record of THEIR response and tries to claim the credit.
Screw Guiliani.

commie-mommy:

Sorry to hear your son is in Iraq. I hope you don't lose him.

If you want to hear the truth about the Iraq War you need to listen to DISH satellite tv's Channel 9415, Free Speech TV and Channel 9410 LINK TV to DemocracyNOW, the INN Report, Liberty News and Keynote speakers getting the truth out. You will hear news from the world that is never reported in the United States. One important documentary that is of great benefit is the 9/11 Press For Truth "Truth, Lies and The Press" narrated by Journalist Peter Coyote.

One can't stick their heads in the sand and play like everything is alright, it isn't. The truth is like a blade of grass buried under the concrete, it will push and push until it comes out. The media is being controlled but the truth is still getting out on satellite and on CD's that can be watched at home.

Here is the computer link to Free Speech TV and LINK TV:

http://www.freespeech.org

http://www.worldlinktv.org/

Your brave son is deceived through extreme right wing propaganda.

*******Perpetual Innocence*******

Perpetual innocence is based upon a binary choice, the ceremony of the creation of innocence and the perpetuation of innocence, perpetual innocence, based upon binary propaganda, bipolar rhetoric that frames dialogue away from the infinite dynamic diversity of GOD into a bipolar, two-part, polarized context of conflict, "for or against" one of two choices; some examples are as follows:

GOD'S Eden or Satan's World
Good or Bad
Right or Wrong
Winner or Loser
Liberal or Conservative
Righteous or Evil
Rich or Poor
For GOD or Against GOD
For Armageddon or Against Armageddon
For One Thing or Against Another

Perpetual innocence is based upon a false choice between "one or the other" of a bipolar frame, a false binary frame in a dynamic world that is a frame used for political control, a frame that casts GOD in the role of a GOD capable of only two choices, rather than a GOD of infinite choices and possibilities; a frame that casts GOD in the role of an idiot, rather than an all knowing and understanding GOD that is in infinite control of all things.

My GOD is a GOD of infinite choices and possibilities. My GOD is not the god of the Conservative RIGHT Wing Republican EXTREMISTS that is the god of the bipolar frame, that is the god of two binary choices of "for one thing or against another". My GOD is not the god of polarized rhetoric, the god of conflict. My GOD is the GOD of PEACE, a dynamic GOD of infinite knowledge, wisdom, understanding, judgment and possibilities. My GOD is not the god of Conservative Right Wing Republican EXTREMISTS. I do not know the god of the Conservative Right Wing Republican EXTREMISTS, and I have not read anything of what Jesus said to indicate that Jesus knows the god of the Conservative Right Wing Republican EXTREMISTS either.

commie-mommy:

Your post accepts the frame of "binary propaganda", the "propaganda of contention", the propaganda of "them against us", the propaganda of "one thing against another".

If you really do want to help your son, reject binary framing of contention by the Conservative Right Wing Republican EXTREMISTS and adopt dynamic framing that admits all possibilities, rather than two that are in contention. Unless you can do this, you are not going to be much help to your son, regardless of your intentions.

MarthaA

I have no intentions for voting fo Hillary. I was just pointing out that at least she had a plan for Iraq. I don't believe that the war will end until we get a new President. Well maybe it will end. Unfortunatly our choices for President sucks in my book. I know that neither side has a plan to stop the war. I also know that niether side is willing to stop and sit down and come to a solution for ending the war. All the presidental canidates are going to do is tell the American people what they want to hear then do just the opposite. Someday we will get an honest President that will look out for the American People and not just themselves.

SCook: In the meantime, just more honest legislators would do.
There's an interesting piece in the Washington Times about a proposal Rep Jack Murtha (D-Pa) made about funding the troops going to Iraq, but requiring them to be properly trained and equipped before they go.
It's getting trashed, not just by the Republicans, but by some of the Blue Dog Republi-lites like Rep Matheson from Utah because "it would withold resources from the troops". WTF?????!!!!!!
How is requiring soldiers and Marines to have relevant training and the proper equipment "witholding resources from the troops"?
These Republi-lites are sounding a lot like doublespeak Republicans.
It sure does NOT sound like they care one iota about our kids!
It mainly proves that we need more populist stand-up give-a-shit Democrats candidates.
Fire the Republi-lites!

Whoops!
I meant Washington Post not Times.
Sorry about that.

Butte: Yea, that would be nice. Remember that on the Republican side that they only care for the rich. Someone summed it up earlier that the military is expendable. I bet Rep Matheson from Utah said that because he has buddies making money off the troops. I honestly believe that if both parties would quit bickering and finger pointing that they could end the war in Iraqi. But alas the Republicans need the war so there buddies can get richer and the Democrats are limited on what they can do. So far Hillary is the only one that I know of that has a plan to make Iraqi better and end the war and I don't even like her but that is what we need.

As a life-long Democrat, I am very angry and upset with the Democratic Party. We, those of who voted in November worked very hard to make sure that we could defeat and outnumber the Republicans. One of the primary reasons we did this is because we are fed up with the Iraq War. Democrats need to stop trying to please the handful of righwingers in the party and start to get with the program and standup and simply put a stop to the Republican control of the Iraq debate, the Republican control of Iraq legislation and in general Republican control of Congress!!! We are the majority in case people have forgotten. Otherwise, you can start practicing saying President McCain.

Instead of revoking the Iraq Resolution, let's vote on a new declaration of war.

Let's say we are at war with Al Qaeda and anyone who helps them. The President, as Commander in Chief, is responsible for using whatever force is necessary to destroy AL Qaeda. This war declaration supersedes any and all previous war declarations.

That's it, nice and sweet and this means we are no longer at war in Iraq unless we know there are direct ties to Al Qaeda.

Published on Monday, February 26, 2007 by the New York Times
Why Have So Many U.S. Attorneys Been Fired? It Looks a Lot Like Politics
by Adam Cohen

Carol Lam, the former United States attorney for San Diego, is smart and tireless and was very good at her job. Her investigation of Representative Randy Cunningham resulted in a guilty plea for taking more than $2 million in bribes from defense contractors and a sentence of more than eight years. Two weeks ago, she indicted Kyle Dustin Foggo, the former No. 3 official in the C.I.A. The defense-contracting scandal she pursued so vigorously could yet drag in other politicians.

In many Justice Departments, her record would have won her awards, and perhaps a promotion to a top post in Washington. In the Bush Justice Department, it got her fired.

Ms. Lam is one of at least seven United States attorneys fired recently under questionable circumstances. The Justice Department is claiming that Ms. Lam and other well-regarded prosecutors like John McKay of Seattle, David Iglesias of New Mexico, Daniel Bogden of Nevada and Paul Charlton of Arizona — who all received strong job evaluations — performed inadequately.

It is hard to call what’s happening anything other than a political purge. And it’s another shameful example of how in the Bush administration, everything — from rebuilding a hurricane-ravaged city to allocating homeland security dollars to invading Iraq — is sacrificed to partisan politics and winning elections.

U.S. attorneys have enormous power. Their decision to investigate or indict can bankrupt a business or destroy a life. They must be, and long have been, insulated from political pressures. Although appointed by the president, once in office they are almost never asked to leave until a new president is elected. The Congressional Research Service has confirmed how unprecedented these firings are. It found that of 486 U.S. attorneys confirmed since 1981, perhaps no more than three were forced out in similar ways — three in 25 years, compared with seven in recent months.

It is not just the large numbers. The firing of H. E. Cummins III is raising as many questions as Ms. Lam’s. Mr. Cummins, one of the most distinguished lawyers in Arkansas, is respected by Republicans and Democrats alike. But he was forced out to make room for J. Timothy Griffin, a former Karl Rove deputy with thin legal experience who did opposition research for the Republican National Committee. (Mr. Griffin recently bowed to the inevitable and said he will not try for a permanent appointment. But he remains in office indefinitely.)

The Bush administration cleared the way for these personnel changes by slipping a little-noticed provision into the Patriot Act last year that allows the president to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for an indefinite period without Senate confirmation.

Three theories are emerging for why these well-qualified U.S. attorney were fired — all political, and all disturbing.

1. Helping friends. Ms. Lam had already put one powerful Republican congressman in jail and was investigating other powerful politicians. The Justice Department, unpersuasively, claims that it was unhappy about Ms. Lam’s failure to bring more immigration cases. Meanwhile, Ms. Lam has been replaced with an interim prosecutor whose résumé shows almost no criminal law experience, but includes her membership in the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.

2. Candidate recruitment. U.S. attorney is a position that can make headlines and launch political careers. Congressional Democrats suspect that the Bush administration has been pushing out long-serving U.S. attorneys to replace them with promising Republican lawyers who can then be run for Congress and top state offices.

3. Presidential politics. The Justice Department concedes that Mr. Cummins was doing a good job in Little Rock. An obvious question is whether the administration was more interested in his successor’s skills in opposition political research — let’s not forget that Arkansas has been lucrative fodder for Republicans in the past — in time for the 2008 elections.

The charge of politics certainly feels right. This administration has made partisanship its lodestar. The Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran revealed in his book, “Imperial Life in the Emerald City,” that even applicants to help administer post-invasion Iraq were asked whom they voted for in 2000 and what they thought of Roe v. Wade.

Congress has been admirably aggressive about investigating. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, held a tough hearing. And he is now talking about calling on the fired U.S. attorneys to testify and subpoenaing their performance evaluations — both good ideas.

The politicization of government over the last six years has had tragic consequences — in New Orleans, Iraq and elsewhere. But allowing politics to infect U.S. attorney offices takes it to a whole new level. Congress should continue to pursue the case of the fired U.S. attorneys vigorously, both to find out what really happened and to make sure that it does not happen again.

**************************************
What I think is happening is not politics, but the Right EXTREMISTS setting themselves up to be in control of the United States through Marshall Law. [Exactly what Hitler did.] I think this is a Shaw Mohammad Raza Pavlavi situation the EXTREME Right is setting up against the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

When the EXTREME Right gets full control of the United States through Marshall Law, nothing else will matter, and the people had better stand together against the Conservative Right Wing EXTREMISTS like the people stood together against Shaw Mohammad Raza Pavlavi. All talking will be off and we will be degenerated into Civil War. This is what is getting ready to happen judging from the Hitleresque techniques the RIGHT EXTREMISTS are using.

""The question may be discussed thus: A prince who fears his own people more than foreigners ought to build fortresses, but he who has greater fear of foreigners than his own people ought to do without them. The castle of Milan built by Francesco Sforza has given and will give more trouble to the house of Sforza than any other disorder in that state. There the best fortress is to be found in the love of the people, for although you may have fortresses they will not save you if you are hated by the people. When once the people have taken arms against you, there will never be lacking foreigners to assist them." ,--Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince"

Attorneys General represent the government -- NOT THE PEOPLE.

MarthaA

You are a wealth of information. Do you work for the Democratic Party or do you just despise the Republican party? Just curious.

Paul Findley: Carter Enters Lions’ Den
by Paul Findley - The Chicago Tribune

Despite criticism, his book is work of a true patriot

At the age of 82, Jimmy Carter entered the lion’s den. With the publication of his latest book, “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid,” he did what a patriot would do: rally Americans to vigorous debate of a critical issue that affects our future. He deserves a hero’s praise. Instead, he has been attacked and defamed.

I had the honor to serve as the senior Republican on the Middle East Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee throughout the Carter administration. Carter frequently invited me to huddles in the White House; discussions that would ultimately lead to a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt. I know Carter well and consider him a friend.

I also experienced firsthand what Carter now faces. Toward the end of my 22-year tenure in Congress, I spoke in favor of Palestinian rights and was critical of Israeli policies of Palestinian land confiscation and Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian lands. These actions were counter to American policy and values. They dimmed chances for peace.

As a result of my evenhanded position, the pro-Israel lobby poured money into my opponent’s campaign. I overcame their challenge in 1980 but lost in 1982 by a narrow margin. Still, the message was heard loudly on Capitol Hill: Criticize Israel and pay with your congressional seat.

In my 1985 book, “They Dare to Speak Out,” I detailed the tactics used to silence criticism of Israeli policies. One of the groups employing these tactics is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. On its Web site, AIPAC calls itself “America’s pro-Israel lobby” and boasts a New York Times description of it as “the most important organization affecting America’s relationship with Israel.”

All citizens have the right to band together and push for policies they believe are right. But AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups do not plead the case for Israel on the stage of public opinion. Instead, they often resort to smear campaigns and intimidation to clear the floor so that only their side is heard.

Carter has dared to call a spade a spade. South African leaders, like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and UN Envoy John Dugard, compare Israeli policies to apartheid. The Israeli press uses the term, as do Israeli politicians. Former Education Minister Shulamit Aloni said in a recent commentary, “Indeed apartheid does exist here.” Pro-Israel lobby groups have not debated the credence of these claims. Instead, they lob accusations and insults, even insinuating that Carter is anti-Semitic. They do not prove him wrong with facts. They seek to discredit him with innuendo.

I do not believe these groups set out to discredit opponents and destroy free speech. I believe they had the singular purpose of ensuring U.S. government support for Israel. But after decades of Israeli actions running counter to American policies and values, it becomes difficult to do one without the other.

American policy has long held, for example, that Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land are illegal. Yet Israel continues to build them. American values demand that all people be treated equally, that rights be doled out in equal measure regardless of one’s race, religion or ethnicity.

Yet, as Carter points out in his book, Israel endows Jewish settlers living on Palestinian land with full rights, while denying those rights to the Palestinians living on their own land.

If these issues were debated openly, U.S. policymakers would have to hold Israel accountable and demand that our financial and diplomatic support be contingent upon Israel upholding American values and policy positions.

Yet there is silence. Critical discussion of Israeli policies is non-existent in Congress. Rather than conducting vigorous committee hearings, as happens with other issues, members of Congress compete to outdo one another in statements of support for Israel. And American tax dollars keep flowing uninterrupted to Israel.

Our unconditional support of Israel damages our credibility on the world stage. It deprives us of potential allies in the Arab and Muslim worlds. It allows Israel to remain intransigent and condemns Palestinian and Israeli children to decades more of conflict.

Open discussion, where all perspectives are debated, leads to good policy. Carter took a stand for what is right: for Americans, for Palestinians and for Israelis. It is time for members of Congress to do the same.

Illinois in the U.S. House for 22 Paul Findley represented years. He is the author of numerous books, including “They Dare to Speak Out” and “Silent No More.”
SOURCE: The Chicago Tribune

I say anyone in goverment that is for the
war needs to slap on the camouflage and be
sent to the front lines.
Since they don't give a crap about the
American taxpayers hard earned McBuckies then
I say it's time they get there wallets out
and start shelling out some cash.
Like they say put your money where your
mouth is.

I say anyone in goverment that is for the
war needs to slap on the camouflage and be
sent to the front lines.
Since they don't give a crap about the
American taxpayers hard earned McBuckies then
I say it's time they get there wallets out
and start shelling out some cash.
Like they say put your money where your
mouth is.

I am a Democrat and have been my whole life, no I should say that I was a Democrat. The Democratic Party position on the War in Iraq has driven me away from them. Hillary Clinton, six months ago, while in Congress (now she's running as president)was pragmatic on the War in Iraq. She believed, at least I thought she believed in bringing stability to the Middle East. She saw, which I believe she saw, that America had a role to play in this. She even expressed that view. Now, less than a week after announcing her run for the presidency, she say's that Pres. Bush created this war and should clean it up before the next Pres. takes office. This statement drives me absolutely insane. I think of a presidential candidate as someone that sticks to what they believe in. Six months ago Sen. Clinton believed in stabilizing Iraq, now she say's bring them home. I don't respect her flip flop, lack of decision making ideas.

All other Democratic candidates are speaking on her same theme. This issue is much too important to me to let it slide. I am angry with the Democrats for their lack of having any perception or deep thinking about the situation in the Middle East. We probably should have avoided Iraq, but we made the committment and now we must see it through. What is America if it can't stand up to our committment. If it gets tough are we supposed to quit? This is not a losing proposition. We do have our honor, not too mention a duty to make sure that the soldiers didn't die in Iraq in vain.

Nobody, can talk me into staying with the Democratic Party. I cherish their values and it it was a pleasure being Democrat. It's not easy to leave the party afterall, I spent volunteer hours supporting just causes, but I draw a line when it comes to this war. I have too many memories of Vietnam to let this escape.

So long.

Was: You are angry with the wrong people.
The Bush administration manipulated intelligence (read lied to the American people) to get support to overstep his War Powers, that Congress had so trustingly given him, and start a conflict that is in no way shape or form legal.
To top it off, he is treating the military personnel(not troops, a troop is a unit of cavalry, we are talking about human beings)like dirt, reducing the effective pay of the lower enlisted, cutting back on benefits, not providing sufficient equipment or training to these kids, overpaying no-bid contracts to war profiteers, who are close friends of the Bush administration, while cutting back on the needed funding for the Veterans' Administration, meanwhile claiming to have increased the budget (well sort of, but they made sure it was never a big enough increase to cover the costs of the rising number of disabled veterans, or needed research and services.)
Now that Rep Murtha wanted to require that soldiers and Marines be properly trained and equipped before being sent to Iraq, the Republicans as well as Republi-lite sell-outs are crying that this "withholds resources from the troops". There's that T-word again, in Republican speak it means faceless cannon fodder that doesn't count for anything. How on God's green earth is requiring soldiers and Marines to be properly equipped "witholding resources from the troops"???
Do some research, stop listening to just Faux...er Fox news, which is the Bushiato's disinformation service.
Comparing Iraq to 'Nam is like apples and oranges.
If you trust the Republican lie machine to give you the "facts", then you weren't really a Democrat anyway.

Was:

If you were standing by a large boulder and you made a commitment not to move the boulder, would the commitment you made still apply if the boulder was rolled over in some manner onto your foot????????

Critics of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq have long demanded that he admit his mistakes. But they have not admitted their own past mistakes, much less admit the potentially catastrophic mistake they will make in the future if they make it impossible to sustain military operations there.” —Thomas Sowell

Obama and all the many candidates from both Parties say they have a ‘plan’ for Iraq. If that plan can help us attain peace, how about coming forward with it now, be a genuine hero today and save American lives tomorrow instead of ‘maybe’ two years from now! God knows we can use a plan.

well the, howard

it was Harry Reid in fact who closed off the debate on the non binding resolutions on Iraq.
Such dishonesty, distortions and lying are very typical of what goes on today in Washington and it should embarrass you since you say that honesty is one of the qualities you want to bring back to Washington. While we are on the subject of honesty, will Hillary be leaving the former impeached lying perjuror Bill at home when she campaigns? Or, does honesty only extend to 'some' democrats.

Are the lives of courageous young American volunteers… worth so little to our Congress that they would ignore our peril for perverse personal political profit.

get a copy of the 2002 Authorization for Military Action. H.J.Res. 114. These Senators you think will save you hopefully read it before they voted for it. It wasn't a one line article indicating military force for WMD disarmament. Here are a few other articles fromt the resolution.

1. Iraq 's "brutal repression of its civilian population
2. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
3. Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq

don't let these Senators tell you they were 'tricked' into a vote from bad intelligence.
The three articles i just gave you from the resolution were accurate information. they voted for war when it was popular and they vote against it now because it's not.
think about that poll voting, is that how you want the people who represent you to vote on, poll information?

Representative Frank P. Briggs of Missouri, the newly elected chairman of the House Democratic conference, said in debate today, "What's popular isn't always right. You say polls are against this. Polls measure changing feelings, not steadfast principle. Polls would have rejected the Ten Commandments. Polls would have embraced slavery and ridiculed women's rights.

a quote from a Democratic Senator from 1945

think, read the resolution, listen to what all the politicians say, why can't we make them be responsible with their votes