The regressive republicans are a bunch of punks!

And Republi-lite Democrats aren't much better!
We need more stand-up Democrats, and a lot fewer wafflers!
Dump the tax breaks!

And it passed by us surrendering and giving in to everything the Republicans wanted--rather than showing the people that the Republicans blocked the increase. Shame.

Finally, on Thursday, the minimum wage bill did pass the Senate, with tax cuts for small businesses.

Seems like a good piece of legislation (though I haven't read the final version). One worth all the frustration. Well done and thank you.

Sure, we needed a minimum wage bill. But if the Democrats don't get those tax breaks DUMPED in Committee, it's hardly a win for the people. You should remember and actually believe that Republicans are not running things anymore. ACT LIKE IT! And please, don't let them get away with a watered down slap on the wrist resolution against this war. Don't give in! The American people want this war OVER!

dors and all- while i haven't read the legislation, it does seem questionable to give money to wage earners on the one hand while essentially taking it away on the other with another tax cut to the monied class- seems like another example of dems caving in to their corporate cronies at the chamber of commerce instead of sticking to some sort of principle that says there have been enough tax cuts in the last six (hell, thirty?) years- it all rolls downhill as we have certainly witnessed in the last six years with the massive tax cuts of the bush administration and the "contract on america" crowd- just another costly tax break attached to the backs of the working folk of this country

"on the thirty-first floor, a gold plated door won't keep out the lord's burning rain"- gram parsons/chris hillman- flying burrito brothers

Posted by queencityjefro on February 2, 2007 at 08:31 PM it does seem questionable to give money to wage earners on the one hand while essentially taking it away on the other with another tax cut to the monied class

That's why I'll look up the bill at some point. To see what the definition of small business is. I know lots of small business owners and they are not "monied". In fact, some of the families don't have health care coverage.

But neither are their businesses adversely affected by the minimum wage increase. Still a tax cut of some order is probably not a bad idea.

If small business really means small business, then this has probably turned out pretty well I think.

dors- i won't argue with your sentiment, the trouble is, as i'm sure you know, the idea of who constitutes a "small business" with the republican party often reads like a who's who of the fortune 500- i understand and support the idea that "small" (with a genuinely small "s") businesses should not suffer as a result of having to pay a handful of workers more money, but really, i'm just not sure that that is what is intended by all the hoopla- i somehow doubt it- there are always loopholes written in to all this legislation, and the democrats are masters at it as my dad is never short on pointing out to me ever since he read that philadelphia enquirer expose on the fleecing of the middle class by the rewriting of the tax codes- a fleecing that both parties excitedly took part in

dors- here is the link to the book- sadly, i have to admit that i didn't make it through the whole thing, and i'm not sure if i gave it back to my dad or if it is in one of the boxes of books (too numerous to count) that sit in my basement (because there is not enough room for them all in the living quarters)-

needless to say, these days i've been wanting to read the damn thing

http://www.amazon.com/America-Wrong-Donald-L-Barlett/dp/0836270010

while i will probably be taken to task and regret for responding to imi, the posts that i have offered here made no distinction between either party's votes- in fact, the book that i mention and link to above makes it quite clear that the selling out of the middle class in this country was brought about by the selling out of both parties to corporate interests who had no interest in protecting the workers of this country and every interest in stacking the deck of the tax code against the bottom 80% (i'm pulling a convervative number out of my hat) in order to line their own pockets and the pockets of their benefactors whose money works to keep them in office- the short of it is that it has nothing to do with party politics- both parties are equally to blame

and now that i have reread my comment from above, i must post again- i did reference the republican party in my comment about what constitutes a "small business"- in truth, i guess what i see happening a lot of the time is much like what i perceive has happened with this bill- a majority of democrats are for the passage of relief for the average wage earner in this country, and a large segment of politicians who perceive themselves to be beholden to corporate/business interests intend to "water" down the bill by attaching additional tax breaks for the very same owners who will pay those wage earners a higher wage- while i am sure that there are dems who would rather have this attached to this bill, i also perceive that the republicans in congress are driving its attachment to what is supposed to be a bill to raise the minimum wage

in the end, if there is a concern for certain truly small businesses who might be affected by this bill, then maybe our congress should debate that concern separately from the fact that people earning the minimum wage are living in poverty

i'm not sure that this article applies to the discussion of raising the minimum wage, but it did come to my mind while wondering why some individuals would even bother taking a minimum wage job- there are more issues than one can shake a stick at- what i do know is that traveling around this city as a case manager for the disabled, i see many more homeless people than i did even a few years ago- last week, there was a fire up under an underpass which i assumed was an encampment fire that had gotten out of control- food for thought

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070201/NEWS01/702010370/-1/all

Huh, looks like the DNC blog police deleted my earlier comment. Let me rephrase it: Gov. Dean was ahead of his time - he will run again - but this year he is the ref. John Edwards seems the least phony of the bunch of folks who are running this time around, because he apologized for the Iraq War vote. We shall see what happens.

Gov. Dean - keep up the good work.

PS - glad to see that the min. wage was increased and its good to help small biz as well.

PARIS, Feb. 2 — In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is “unequivocal” and that human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/science/earth/03climate.html?ref=world

So where's that twit trolly Frostie the Cowpie.

Here's the damning prove that global warming is for real despite what flat-headed trollies say.

I am glad minimum wage passed but shame on the Republicans for forcing even more tax cuts at a time when we can't afford them. Let's revoke Bush's tax cuts for the upper brackets to make up the difference.

Goodness there are so many threads here I don't know which one to post on.

The regressive republicans voted for tax hikes on CEOs. LOL!

The regressives caved on the minimum wage bill almost as fast as they did in the search for Osama Bin Laden.

i see many more homeless people than i did even a few years ago- last week, there was a fire up under an underpass which i assumed was an encampment fire that had gotten out of control- food for thought
****

hey jefro, hard to figure out where to post tonight. There doesn't seem to a Friday open thread.

Yep, the minimum wage is just one problem out of many. The bankruptcy laws should be changed back to what they were. We also need universal health care as most bankruptcies are medical related.

But first, this rotten Iraq debacle and militarism must come to an end. It's time for the american empire to come home and for us to get our house in order.

The regressives caved on the minimum wage bill almost as fast as they did in the search for Osama Bin Laden.
****

We need to keep pressuring them. They know that voters are watching and will take it out on them in 2008 if they keep acting like cavemem.

The next major economic action should be passing the Employee Free Choice act that will make forming unions easier.

It's time for workers to unite again.

Impeach, Impeach, Impeach
by Cenk Uygur
Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:27:19 AM PST

Every single day the US puts out another statement about how Iran is helping in attacks against US troops in Iraq. This is nothing but complete lies. The same type of lies we heard before the Iraq War. The Iranians support the Shiites in Iraq. The insurgents laying down the IEDs against our troops and that are doing a great majority of the attacks against us are - Sunnis!

The Iranians would never support the Sunnis. The Shiite militias are mainly killing Sunnis now, not US troops. This is so obvious, but unfortunately these new set of lies are challenged by so few people, just like in the lead up to the Iraq War. People are more skeptical now, but not nearly skeptical enough as the war machine revs up again.
Cenk Uygur's diary :: ::

The LA Times at least has written an excellent piece explaining why these charges against Iran are lies. The Bush administration also warns of Iranian WMD, when every expert in the field says they wouldn't even have the capacity for a nuclear weapon another five to ten years. Gee, where have I heard lies about WMD before?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/2/9236/50789

****

Like the title of that journal. Impeach Chimp and Shotgun Dick.

Republicans Poised to Hang Themselves on Iraq
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2007-02-02 16:33. Congress

Leadership putting loyalty to Bush before loyalty to the voters
Will Sen. John Warner be the next ‘Macaca’ from Virginia?
By Kevin Zeese

The Republican leadership seems poised to take their party over the cliff. Sen. John Warner has successfully manipulated the Senate so that it will not make a strong statement against the escalation of troops in Iraq and will re-affirm its unwillingness to use the power of the purse to stop the president. And, Republican leader Mitch McConnell, is threatening to filibuster the appropriations supplemental if the Democrats restricts the president too much or redirect the funds toward withdrawal. In the House GOP members are being pressured by the leadership to back the war. The voters spoke on November 7, 2006 and polls since have shown opposition to the war has increased and solidified, with landslide opposition to sending more troops to Iraq. Putting Bush’s failed and illegal war before the wishes of the American public risks the future of the Republican Party.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18072

Great Puggies! Keep it up and the Puggies will be a minority party for the next twenty five years.

Video: End the Occupation Now
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2007-02-02 14:27. Video and Audio

On January 27, 2007, 500,000 marched against war and occupation in Washington, DC. After this mass demonstration against the war, Kelly Dougherty, co-founder and Executive Director of Iraq Veterans Against War, and Anthony Arnove, author of Iraq: the Logic of Withdrawal spoke at the Bus Boys and Poets cafe. Their talks followed an incredible performance of songs by activist/hip hop artist Son of Nun.

See videos of these talks (each about 20 minutes) and a scintillating performance of his "Speak on It" by Son of Nun at http://www.traprockpeace.org/arnove_dougherty_012707.html

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18068

It was at least 500,000 despite what the lying MSM says.

Here's the open thread, rjsnj.

USA must develop biotechnological and nano-technical changed, changed bacteria, orbacteria micro robert he combinations, which clean environment, air and waterto clean, clean, those from greenhouse gases, carbon oxides, sulfur oxides,Metan oxides, chemicals and pollutants, which of the industry and traffic areproduced as wastes, wastes! Biotechnological and nano-technical changedbacteria, or bacteria micro robert he combinations, those simply eat, in-collectgreenhouse gases, carbon oxides, sulfur oxides, Metan oxides, to use chemicalsand pollutants from the environment and then these materials in the industryagain as raw materials! These biotechnological and nano-technical changedbacteria, or bacteria micro robert he combinations controlled in its increase,spreading and behavior! If nano-particle installed into these bacteria, thenbacteria micro robert he combinations produces to become controlled remotecontrolled to be able, be able! USA must develop biotechnological andnano-technical changed, changed viruses these bacteria, or bacteria microRobert he combinations destroy, if this too strong should to increase andprevent so uncontrolled increase! The technology would be, would be away-cutenvironmental protection technology of the world, would have, would haveinconceivably large, large application possibility, application possibility inenvironmental protection, environmental re-establishment, the military,military land defense, and the economic trade!
Text in German, Deutsch into English!
USA muss entwickeln Biotechnische und Nanotechnischeveraenderte, veränderte Bakterien, oder Bakterien-Mikro-Roberter-Kombinationen,die Umwelt, Luft und Wasser reinigen, saeubern, säubern, die von TreibhausGase, Kohlenstoffoxide, Schwefeloxide, Metan-oxide, Chemikalien undSchadstoffe, die von der Industrie und Verkehrswesen als Abfaelle, Abfälleproduziert werden !
Biotechnische und Nanotechnische veränderte Bakterien, oderBakterien-Mikro-Roberter-Kombinationen, die einfach Auffressen, einsammeln TreibhausGase, Kohlenstoffoxide, Schwefeloxide, Metan-oxide, Chemikalien und Schadstoffeaus der Umwelt und dann diese Stoffe in der Industrie wieder zu verwenden alsRohstoffe !
Diese Biotechnische und Nanotechnische veränderte Bakterien,oder Bakterien-Mikro-Roberter-Kombinationen muesssen, müsssen kontrolliert inihrer Vermehrung, Verbreitung und Verhalten !
Installierte Nano-Teilchen in diese Bakterien, dann werdenBakterien-Mikro-Roberter-Kombinationen erzeugt die kontrolliert ferngesteuertwerden koennen, können !
USA muss entwickeln Biotechnische und Nanotechnischeveraenderte, veränderte Viren diese Bakterien, oderBakterien-Mikro-Roberter-Kombinationen vernichten, wenn diese sich zu starkevermehren sollten und so unkontrolliert Vermehrung zu verhindern !
Die Technologie waere, wäre die fortschnittstUmweltschutztechnologie der Welt, haette, hätte unvorstellbar grosse, großeAnwendungsmoeglichkeit, Anwendungsmöglichkeit im Umweltschutz,Umweltwiederherstellung, der Militaerischen, Militärischen Landverteidigung,und den Wirtschaftlichen Handel !

The Dems are moving on exactly on Target.Minimum Wage Done.The next is immigration for the people,and by the people.

Minimum wage is done? Not hardly likely! The fat lady ain't sung, yet.
The Republi-lites in the Senate just sold us out by cutting taxes for those who can afford it, and the details of the differences need to be hashed out between the Senate and the House. We need to keep telling these Republi-lite cretins that they need to wake up and smell the coffee. This tax the poor and middle class policy is NOT sustainable.
The NEXT issue to be addressed should be the unfair "free" trade agreements that have shipped our jobs overseas, and destroyed the economies of our neighbors to the south so that we are flooded with economic refugees.
The first item on that agenda should be NO MORE "Fast Track". Then we need to re-negotiate NAFTA, CAFTA, and the other "free" trade agreements to provide better protection for workers, and for the environment.
There are too many people out there who want to punish the economic refugees from Mexico and Central America for being the victims of the greedy robber barons of industry who are based in this country.
The responsible way is to correct the problems we caused them first.

“I’m concerned about protectionism, isolationism.”

Those were the first words President Bush spoke as he sat down Wednesday at an editorial board meeting at the Wall Street Journal.

Reading his remarks calls forth only sadness. For neither the president nor his acolytes at the Journal appear to have learned anything from the disasters their ideas have visited upon the country.

Can Bush not see that the isolation of America is a result of the war he launched on a nation that, no matter how odious its regime, did not threaten us? Can he not see clearly now the idiocy of the Journal’s 10-year crusade for a “MacArthur Regency” in Baghdad? Has this president learned nothing? And, if not, what does that portend for Iran?

As for protectionism, does Bush not see the link between the rise of economic nationalism in America, the rout of his party in November and the humongous trade deficits he has been running up?

When the trade figures for 2006 come in, it will be revealed that the United States ran the greatest trade deficit in history, close to $800 billion, near 7 percent of GDP. And the greatest trade deficit with any one country will be recorded – a trade deficit with China of nearly $230 billion.

Because China fixes its currency 40 percent below where it would float in a free market, Beijing is siphoning factories, technologies and jobs out of our country at a prodigious rate. For two decades, China’s annual growth has been consistent at 9-10 percent. Beijing has accumulated $1 trillion in hard currency reserves, most of it in dollar-denominated instruments.

A good slice of that trade surplus, and of the billions Beijing collects in annual interest on that share of our national debt it holds, is used to finance the greatest military buildup in Asia since Japan in the 1930s. Our “strategic partner” just sent us a message in the clear. Using a land-based ballistic missile, Beijing blasted a satellite out of the sky, 500 miles above the earth.

Does President Bush not understand the correlation between his trade policy, our sinking dollar and the loss of 3 million manufacturing jobs on his watch? Economic patriotism is on the march because economic globalism is failing America.

We are being skinned alive by our trading partners. While we have eliminated tariffs, they impose value-added taxes of up to 20 percent on U.S. goods entering the country and rebate the VAT on goods they export to the United States. This system operates like a 40 percent tariff on U.S. goods. That is why we are running record trade deficits with Canada, the European Union, Japan and Free Asia.

Bush has now begun his campaign for renewal of “fast track” authority, which expires in July. Under fast track, Congress agrees to give up its constitutional right to amend trade treaties.

But to give Bush a blank check to negotiate trade treaties after his record trade deficits makes as much sense as giving him a blank check to launch another war. Some adult has got to grab the steering wheel here.

WE MUST MAKE BUSH AND HIS GOP RIGHT WING PARTY ANSWER IN FOR WHAY HAVE DONE TO THE PEOPLE'S OF THE U.S.A IN THE FINAL TWO YEARS OF BUSH PRESIDENCY AND THE REPUBLICANS MUST BE STOP AND STOP THE WAR

God Bless the Congress. It appears The Democrats really are working and fighting. Tight! So hopefully we can get a little break for the next two years, but then, we just have to do ALL we can to get our Democratic Candidate elected. We, of course, have to act now, but at least we know that our "background" is safe, for it's trully ours. The nation really does put its trust in the Democratic party and It supports it like never before. I can see it all around, in my home state, at my college, at work, at home, like everywhere. According to polls around seventy percent of Americans support the Party and its efforts. Fantastic! I guess it's just us, it's WE THE PEOPLE that are different now. It's like waking up after sleeping and being blind for six years in a row. Now we think and act. I'm only 22 but i'm full of renewed hope and optimism for our future, cause i know that if the American People are not going to give up, things are gonna get better. They are. We just have to keep up the great work and increase our efforts in winning all over. So it's up to us. If we really do all we can, i can't imagine wht it's gonna be like in like five years from now or ten years from now. Keep it up!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose
our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
--Abraham Lincoln

God Bless the Congress. It appears The Democrats really are working and fighting. Tight! So hopefully we can get a little break for the next two years, but then, we just have to do ALL we can to get our Democratic Candidate elected. We, of course, have to act now, but at least we know that our "background" is safe, for it's trully ours. The nation really does put its trust in the Democratic party and It supports it like never before. I can see it all around, in my home state, at my college, at work, at home, like everywhere. According to polls around seventy percent of Americans support the Party and its efforts. Fantastic! I guess it's just us, it's WE THE PEOPLE that are different now. It's like waking up after sleeping and being blind for six years in a row. Now we think and act. I'm only 22 but i'm full of renewed hope and optimism for our future, cause i know that if the American People are not going to give up, things are gonna get better. They are. We just have to keep up the great work and increase our efforts in winning all over. So it's up to us. If we really do all we can, i can't imagine what it's gonna be like in like five years from now or ten years from now. Keep it up!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose
our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
--Abraham Lincoln

NOW THE REPUBLICANS THAT WILL BE FACING RE-ELECTION IN 2008 WE MUST VOTE HIM OUT OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE THEY MUST GO NOW ,FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE'S WE NEED A GOVERNMENT THAT IS FOR THE PEOPLE'S AND BY THE PEOPLE'S WE NEED ALL CHURCH LEADERS TO STAND UP FOR THE POOR PEOPLE'S ALL OVER THE U.S.A WE HAVE POOR POWER SO WE MUST US IT SO STAND UP PEOPLE'S

YES MY PEOPLE'S KEEP STANDING UP FOR WHAT YOU NO IS RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE'S WE NEED THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE TO BE ALL DEMOCRATS TO PUT AN END TO WAR AND POVERTY THAT THE POOR PEOPLE'S LIVE IN, SO WE MUST STAND FOR OUR KIDS LIFEAND ON ON SO STAND UP NOW AND ALL WAYS FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE'S

THE POOR PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN INC AS THE PPC WE MUST STAND UP AND KEEP STANDING ALL WAYS FOR ALL PEOPLE'S ALL OVER FOR WE HAVE POOR POWER SO US IT NOW AND ALL WAYS TO PUT AN END TO THE WAR AND POVERTY THAT THE POOR LIVE IN SO STAND UP PEOPLE'S

TOGETHER STANDING AS ONE WE CAN MAKE A NEW DAYS SO DON'T STOP THE FEELING KEEP IT A LIVE POOR POWER WE HAVE TOGETHER SO KEEP STANDING UP MY PEOPLE'S

END BUSH AND HIS GOP WAR STOP THE KILLING OF OUR PEOPLE'S NOW YOU --- ----- NOW WE MUST KEEP STANDING TO THIS HATE FOR THAT IS WHAT WAR IS AND TO MAKE MONEY AND OIL THAT IS WHAT BUSH IS LOOKING FOR POWER OVER OIL SO THIS IS HIS WAR HE LOVE THAT OIL OVER THERE NOT OUR PEOPLE'S YES NOT AT ALL. MY PEOPLE'S SEND THE POOR PEOPLE'S TO DIE IN HIS WAR.FOR HIM SO HE CAN HAVE THE OIL AND THE MONEY WHEN HE COME OUT OF THE HOUSE YES MY PEOPLE'S HE IS NO GOOD FOR THE U.S.A AT ALL PEOPLE'S

You got it, kingrobinson1:
Poor people in this country have to stand up and keep in the politicians' faces.
We gotta keep reminding them that 2008 is not just presidential elections, but the House and 1/3 of the Senate, and if they don't start supporting the growing number of poor people in this country, they're gonna be out on the streets.
We need to keep sending them messages, and start looking for the people we do want to represent us.
We also need to keep on these politicians cases about campaign and election reform.
We've had enough of stolen elections and bought off politicians!
It's time to fix this country, and get it back on the right road!
This ugly little cancer that they tacked on the minimum wage bill proves there's a lot more work to be done!

“I’m concerned about protectionism, isolationism.”

Those were the first words President Bush spoke as he sat down Wednesday at an editorial board meeting at the Wall Street Journal.

Reading his remarks calls forth only sadness. For neither the president nor his acolytes at the Journal appear to have learned anything from the disasters their ideas have visited upon the country.

Can Bush not see that the isolation of America is a result of the war he launched on a nation that, no matter how odious its regime, did not threaten us? Can he not see clearly now the idiocy of the Journal’s 10-year crusade for a “MacArthur Regency” in Baghdad? Has this president learned nothing? And, if not, what does that portend for Iran?

As for protectionism, does Bush not see the link between the rise of economic nationalism in America, the rout of his party in November and the humongous trade deficits he has been running up?

When the trade figures for 2006 come in, it will be revealed that the United States ran the greatest trade deficit in history, close to $800 billion, near 7 percent of GDP. And the greatest trade deficit with any one country will be recorded – a trade deficit with China of nearly $230 billion.

Because China fixes its currency 40 percent below where it would float in a free market, Beijing is siphoning factories, technologies and jobs out of our country at a prodigious rate. For two decades, China’s annual growth has been consistent at 9-10 percent. Beijing has accumulated $1 trillion in hard currency reserves, most of it in dollar-denominated instruments.

A good slice of that trade surplus, and of the billions Beijing collects in annual interest on that share of our national debt it holds, is used to finance the greatest military buildup in Asia since Japan in the 1930s. Our “strategic partner” just sent us a message in the clear. Using a land-based ballistic missile, Beijing blasted a satellite out of the sky, 500 miles above the earth.

Does President Bush not understand the correlation between his trade policy, our sinking dollar and the loss of 3 million manufacturing jobs on his watch? Economic patriotism is on the march because economic globalism is failing America.

We are being skinned alive by our trading partners. While we have eliminated tariffs, they impose value-added taxes of up to 20 percent on U.S. goods entering the country and rebate the VAT on goods they export to the United States. This system operates like a 40 percent tariff on U.S. goods. That is why we are running record trade deficits with Canada, the European Union, Japan and Free Asia.

Bush has now begun his campaign for renewal of “fast track” authority, which expires in July. Under fast track, Congress agrees to give up its constitutional right to amend trade treaties.

But to give Bush a blank check to negotiate trade treaties after his record trade deficits makes as much sense as giving him a blank check to launch another war. Some adult has got to grab the steering wheel here.

'Perfect Storm' Is Rising To Oust Dick Cheney
by Michele Steinberg

With the combination of the most somber and serious Congressional hearings since Watergate, and the opening of the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor, I. Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby, for perjury and obstruction of justice, there is a ''window of opportunity'' for impeachment of the Vice President--and Cheney is jumping right through it.

On Jan. 24, one day after Cheney was exposed by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, as directing the campaign to discredit a credible, eyewitness critic, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, by exposing the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, who worked as a covert agent of the CIA, Cheney went on national television to announce that the White House will ignore any resolution from Congress that criticizes the escalation of force in Iraq.

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, when asked about the Senate resolution against the ''surge,'' which had just been passed by the Foreign Relations Committee, Cheney boasted, ''That won't stop us ... we are moving forward ... the President has made his decision.''

In short, Cheney's own foul mouth, in bragging that the White House will ignore the Senate resolution against Bush's surge, just hours after the Senate committee passed the bipartisan Biden-Hagel-Levin measure, creates the ''perfect storm'' that could finally sweep Cheney out of the White House.

The exposure of Cheney's role in the Scooter Libby case, and his outrageous dismissal of the constitutional role of the Congress, affords the Bush family--which enlisted Cheney to craft George W. Bush's Presidential run in 2000--an opportunity now to take action to get him out.
This is not a matter of partisan, or revenge politics, but a matter of the national interest. Around the world, as a second carrier group move towards the Persian Gulf, and White House threats against Iran are repeated on a daily basis, it is recognized that the only certain path to stopping the planned attack on Iran is the impeachment of Dick Cheney, who today, just as in the case of the Iraq War, is running the ''team'' and the policy for ''regime change'' in Iran.

Now Is the Time
Pundits--especially those favorable to Cheney's chickenhawk policies--have said that impeachment is unlikely because the Vice President is a ''constitutionally elected official'' who can only be removed under charges of criminality, or by voluntarily resigning. But, with the opening statement by Special Counsel Fitzgerald in the Libby trial, on Jan. 23, in which he alleged that Cheney issued a hand-written memo to Libby on discrediting Wilson, the situation changed. Not only did Fitzgerald disclose the existence of the memo, but he charged that Libby had ''wiped out'' that incriminating piece of evidence.
However, reportedly through the combination of computer memory recovery methods, and the testimony of witnesses who also knew about Cheney's memo, Fitzgerald was able to introduce the matter in his opening remarks.
Now, to all those who say ''impeachment is off the table,'' one must ask--what would the trial of Richard Nixon's aides Haldeman, Ehrlichman, et al., have looked like, if a hand-written note from Nixon, directing them to break into the offices of Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel, had been disclosed?
Washington insiders report that the Bush family may be the critical factor in getting rid of Cheney, a scenario which is being mooted in the media.
On Jan. 25, Keith Olbermann, the host of the popular ''Countdown'' show on MSNBC, did a five-minute spot called, ''Should Cheney Go?'' He pointed to longtime Bush family operative, James Baker III, as the person who tried--and failed--to save G.W. Bush from the Cheney disaster.
Olbermann opened his show saying, ''Piece by piece testimony at the Scooter Libby trial is dismantling the already tattered reputation of the nation's Vice President, portraying him as consumed with retaliating against a serious credible critic of his attempts to sell the war....''
Later in the program, Olbermann said, ''Another friend of this show, Craig Crawford, reported today that Jim Baker not only led the Iraq Study Group, he was also leading a kind of a private attempt to wrench the President away from Mr. Cheney's influence and ideology, and ultimately failed in that, judging from what the President is trying to do in Iraq now, in light of the Baker Commission....''
The phrase being increasingly heard in the halls of Congress and around Washington is, ''the time is now.'' It is being used in the appeals from Republicans to the Bush family to save the Party and the Bush legacy--by getting Cheney out. And, it has been heard in open Congressional hearings, such as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote of Jan. 24 on the Biden-Hagel-Levin resolution that condemned Bush's ''surge'' in Iraq. Senators said ''now is the time'' that Congress must take decisive action, such as capping the number of troops in Iraq, or cutting off the funds for the war, using the ''power of the purse.''

Impeach Cheney Now
According to a well-informed Washington intelligence source, the major question after day one of the Libby trial was, ''Why was the Vice President not indicted along with Libby?'' Fitzgerald apparently did not want to influence the outcome of the 2006 election by issuing an indictment before the vote--but, there is no obstacle now. And, a massive outpouring from the voters could actually bring it about.
In three days of trial, evidence has been introduced that it was Cheney who was obsessed with discrediting Wilson, and it was Cheney who personally directed the anti-Wilson campaign, which included the ''outing'' of Plame (who was, ironically, trying to track down weapons of mass destruction in Iran!).
Even Voice of America, a news service wholly owned by the U.S. government, pointed to Cheney. On Jan. 26, an unusual article, signed only as ''By VOA News,'' said the following:
''A former spokeswoman to Vice President Dick Cheney says she informed Cheney and his former chief-of-staff, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, about the identity of a CIA operative married to a Bush administration critic.
''[Cathie] Martin testified that she informed Cheney and Libby of Plame's identity after learning it from a CIA official. She also said Cheney personally directed efforts to discredit Wilson's allegations.''
Coming on the heels of Fitzgerald's disclosure of the Cheney memo, written during a trip to Norfolk, Virginia, which included Cathie Martin, Cheney, and Libby, there is growing pressure to prosecute Cheney.

E-mail to a friend Home Difficulty printing? Try this
'Perfect Storm' Is Rising To Oust Dick Cheneyby Michele Steinberg

With the combination of the most somber and serious Congressional hearings since Watergate, and the opening of the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor, I. Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby, for perjury and obstruction of justice, there is a ''window of opportunity'' for impeachment of the Vice President--and Cheney is jumping right through it.
On Jan. 24, one day after Cheney was exposed by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, as directing the campaign to discredit a credible, eyewitness critic, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, by exposing the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, who worked as a covert agent of the CIA, Cheney went on national television to announce that the White House will ignore any resolution from Congress that criticizes the escalation of force in Iraq.
In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, when asked about the Senate resolution against the ''surge,'' which had just been passed by the Foreign Relations Committee, Cheney boasted, ''That won't stop us ... we are moving forward ... the President has made his decision.''
In short, Cheney's own foul mouth, in bragging that the White House will ignore the Senate resolution against Bush's surge, just hours after the Senate committee passed the bipartisan Biden-Hagel-Levin measure, creates the ''perfect storm'' that could finally sweep Cheney out of the White House.
The exposure of Cheney's role in the Scooter Libby case, and his outrageous dismissal of the constitutional role of the Congress, affords the Bush family--which enlisted Cheney to craft George W. Bush's Presidential run in 2000--an opportunity now to take action to get him out.
This is not a matter of partisan, or revenge politics, but a matter of the national interest. Around the world, as a second carrier group move towards the Persian Gulf, and White House threats against Iran are repeated on a daily basis, it is recognized that the only certain path to stopping the planned attack on Iran is the impeachment of Dick Cheney, who today, just as in the case of the Iraq War, is running the ''team'' and the policy for ''regime change'' in Iran.

Now Is the Time
Pundits--especially those favorable to Cheney's chickenhawk policies--have said that impeachment is unlikely because the Vice President is a ''constitutionally elected official'' who can only be removed under charges of criminality, or by voluntarily resigning. But, with the opening statement by Special Counsel Fitzgerald in the Libby trial, on Jan. 23, in which he alleged that Cheney issued a hand-written memo to Libby on discrediting Wilson, the situation changed. Not only did Fitzgerald disclose the existence of the memo, but he charged that Libby had ''wiped out'' that incriminating piece of evidence.
However, reportedly through the combination of computer memory recovery methods, and the testimony of witnesses who also knew about Cheney's memo, Fitzgerald was able to introduce the matter in his opening remarks.
Now, to all those who say ''impeachment is off the table,'' one must ask--what would the trial of Richard Nixon's aides Haldeman, Ehrlichman, et al., have looked like, if a hand-written note from Nixon, directing them to break into the offices of Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel, had been disclosed?
Washington insiders report that the Bush family may be the critical factor in getting rid of Cheney, a scenario which is being mooted in the media.
On Jan. 25, Keith Olbermann, the host of the popular ''Countdown'' show on MSNBC, did a five-minute spot called, ''Should Cheney Go?'' He pointed to longtime Bush family operative, James Baker III, as the person who tried--and failed--to save G.W. Bush from the Cheney disaster.
Olbermann opened his show saying, ''Piece by piece testimony at the Scooter Libby trial is dismantling the already tattered reputation of the nation's Vice President, portraying him as consumed with retaliating against a serious credible critic of his attempts to sell the war....''
Later in the program, Olbermann said, ''Another friend of this show, Craig Crawford, reported today that Jim Baker not only led the Iraq Study Group, he was also leading a kind of a private attempt to wrench the President away from Mr. Cheney's influence and ideology, and ultimately failed in that, judging from what the President is trying to do in Iraq now, in light of the Baker Commission....''
The phrase being increasingly heard in the halls of Congress and around Washington is, ''the time is now.'' It is being used in the appeals from Republicans to the Bush family to save the Party and the Bush legacy--by getting Cheney out. And, it has been heard in open Congressional hearings, such as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote of Jan. 24 on the Biden-Hagel-Levin resolution that condemned Bush's ''surge'' in Iraq. Senators said ''now is the time'' that Congress must take decisive action, such as capping the number of troops in Iraq, or cutting off the funds for the war, using the ''power of the purse.''

Impeach Cheney Now
According to a well-informed Washington intelligence source, the major question after day one of the Libby trial was, ''Why was the Vice President not indicted along with Libby?'' Fitzgerald apparently did not want to influence the outcome of the 2006 election by issuing an indictment before the vote--but, there is no obstacle now. And, a massive outpouring from the voters could actually bring it about.
In three days of trial, evidence has been introduced that it was Cheney who was obsessed with discrediting Wilson, and it was Cheney who personally directed the anti-Wilson campaign, which included the ''outing'' of Plame (who was, ironically, trying to track down weapons of mass destruction in Iran!).
Even Voice of America, a news service wholly owned by the U.S. government, pointed to Cheney. On Jan. 26, an unusual article, signed only as ''By VOA News,'' said the following:
''A former spokeswoman to Vice President Dick Cheney says she informed Cheney and his former chief-of-staff, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, about the identity of a CIA operative married to a Bush administration critic.
''[Cathie] Martin testified that she informed Cheney and Libby of Plame's identity after learning it from a CIA official. She also said Cheney personally directed efforts to discredit Wilson's allegations.''
Coming on the heels of Fitzgerald's disclosure of the Cheney memo, written during a trip to Norfolk, Virginia, which included Cathie Martin, Cheney, and Libby, there is growing pressure to prosecute Cheney.

Congress Takes Action
Parallel to the political explosion in the Libby trial, is a drive by members of the U.S. Congress to stop Bush's stubborn madness in the Persian Gulf--both his escalation of troop deployments in Iraq, and his refusal to diplomatically engage Iran and Syria to find a way to end the Iraq conflict.
On Jan. 24, the vote by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in favor of the Concurrent Resolution against the surge, was evidence of what Lyndon LaRouche has dubbed the ''New Politics,'' following the Nov. 7, 2006 election.
By a 12-9 vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the Biden-Hagel-Levin resolution, which states, ''it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq.'' Quite revealing was the fact that of the ten Republicans on the committee, only one, Sen. David Vitter (La.), explicitly supported the Bush surge as stated.
But more compelling than the dry words of a consensus resolution, was the three-hour debate, which every member of the 21-person committee attended. In that debate, the central issue was the adoption of the Baker-Hamilton/Iraq Study Group report, as the policy of the nation.
Of great import is a second bipartisan Senate concurrent resolution against the surge (see Documentation), introduced by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a former Secretary of the Navy, and one of the most senior Republicans in the Congress. The Warner resolution is co-sponsored by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Me.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), and Norm Coleman (R-Minn.).
On Jan. 22, in announcing the resolution, Warner said that he would not act on a vote until after the Biden-Hagel-Levin resolution comes to the Senate floor--which is expected during the week of Jan. 29. Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joe Biden (D-Del.) said that, in some respects, the Warner resolution is tougher than theirs, and he would be open to working out a common resolution with Warner. However, it appears, for now, that Warner will keep the two separate.
But these two bills are just the tip of the iceberg. There are already four additional resolutions that have been introduced to block a war on Iran:
* House Concurrent Resolution 43, introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), with ten co-sponsors, calls for implementation of the Baker-Hamilton Commission's recommendation on diplomacy with Iran and Syria;
* Senate Resolution 39, introduced by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), addresses the need for Congressional approval before the White House can take offensive military action against any other nation;
* House Concurrent Resolution 33, introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), with 30 co-sponsors, says the President should not take military action against Iran without Congressional authorization;
* House Joint Resolution 13, introduced by Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), with 18 co-sponsors, attempts to block offensive miltiary action against Iran.
However, there are serious concerns that these actions do not go far enough, and are not fast enough. Many observers believe that only immediate steps to remove the Vice President by impeachment could protect the nation from the disaster of a war with Iran.
With that mood in the country, it is not surprising that, on Jan. 25, Congressional actions escalated:
* The Senate Judicary committee has scheduled a hearing on Jan. 30, entitled ''Congress's Power To End a War.'' Its chairman, Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), said, ''Congress holds the power of the purse, and if the President continues to advance his failed Iraq policy, we have the responsibility to use that power to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. This hearing will help inform my colleagues and the public about Congress's power to end a war and how that power has been used in the past.'' Among the scheduled witnesses is Prof. Walter Dellinger of Duke University School of Law, a former U.S. Solicitor General, and an expert on impeachment.
* House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) announced that his committee will hold hearings, beginning Jan. 31, on President Bush's rampant abuse of ''signing statements'' and Bush's claim that these documents give him the power to ignore laws duly passed by the Congress.
Commentators immediately noted that, with these hearings, impeachment is now ''back on the table.''
Then, on Jan. 26, Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, charged that Dick Cheney had obstructed and delayed the Senate investigation of ''Phase II'' of the committee's investigation of the misuse of Iraq War intelligence. Observers say this charge, if proved, reaches the threshold of ''high crimes and misdemeanors,'' the Constitutional requirement for impeachment.

A Fiery Debate
When Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, presented a mealy-mouthed opposition to the Biden-Hagel-Levin resolution, saying that it will ''deepen the divide'' between the Legislature and the Executive on Iraq, his strongest opponent was fellow-Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. Hagel, a Vietnam War hero, pummelled the idea that any Senator can continue to remain silent on Iraq. The nation has passed the point of a divide, Hagel said, and the question is, should Congress ever get involved? He cited Senator Warner's assertion that, ''We're a co-equal branch ... [based on] Article I of the Constitution.''
Hagel continued, even more impassioned, demanding that all 100 Senators step up to the plate on this tough decision, challenging them: ''You want a safe job? Go sell shoes.''
He charged that the impugning of the motives of the resolution sponsors, and questioning their patriotism is ''offensive and disgusting,'' and that the American people are far ahead of the Congress in recognizing that the administration has failed in Iraq. He warned Congress not to send any more American soldiers into ''that grinder.''
Hagel said he wants ''every Senator to look into the camera'' and tell the people back home what they think. ''Don't hide any more!'' The President's plan would make the world far more dangerous, and more dangerous for America, Hagel charged. ''Read the Baker-Hamilton report,'' he added, a comment which became standard for almost every supporter of the resolution--and even some of the opponents.
From Vietnam veterans John Kerry (D-Mass.), James Webb (D-Va.), and Hagel, to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who silenced the opposition when she revealed that her state has the highest number of deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, the debate was a proud hour for American citizens.
Senator Feingold wants the Congress to cut funding after a certain point, and Kerry captured the sentiments of all in declaring, ''This is our moment, and our time.''

Cronyism is criminal, as is lying to the American people to start a war. Cheney is in on all of it!
We still don't know the REAL reason the War of Lies got started, but judging from the effects, there was money to be made on the war, and the entire Bushiato was in on it.
We need to keep digging on the Abramoff and Plaume scandals. We also need to inquire deeper into the manipulation of intelligence data, to con the American people into supporting this adventuring into disaster.
Being a conspirator in war crimes is a criminal offense. Dubya doesn't have the drive or intelligence to come up with all this on his own. He's a front man with delusions of adequacy.
INVESTIGATE! IMPEACH!! INDICT!!!

This may come as a shock, but I don't have nearly the resentment about the small business tax cuts as many here seem to have. There are two reasons for this:

1. "Spiting" the Republicans by spiting the Wal-Mart slaves is not how I see the ideals of the Democratic Party.
   
2. The petit-bourgeoisie, while largely Republican by virtue of their brainwashing, are more likely to be potential allies of the proletariat than the grand bourgeoisie, for whom the grand often refers to the magnitude of their larceny.
   

let's get out there and win this race in 08

Last time I looked Wal-Mart is NOT a small business.
Most small businesses will not be hurt by mnimum wage increase, because they will have more people coming in to buy more things.
I'd much rather buy from Joe down the street than ship my dollars, which are needed in Montana, to Arkansas, where they will be put in a large vault for the Walton family to swim around in ala Scrooge McDuck.
The Waltons will only find new ways to torture their "associates" like the new computer scheduling which leaves no slack for parents to deal with child-raising issues.
That sound you hear is Sam Walton spinning in his grave.

Let's not forget to make certain that we do not vote in one of Al From's Republican Lobbying DLCers, and there's a bunch of them.

None of the Presidential Candidates saw the need to tell WE THE PEOPLE that they had pulled out of the DLC, which is an absolute necessity for a GRASSROOTS VOTE.

When it comes time to vote, if my Grassroots choices are a DLC Candidate and a liberal to moderate Republican, I will vote Republican, because the DLC is against the Grassroots, and there may be a small chance of the Grassroots getting a fair shake economically with a liberal or moderate Republican, but no chance at all with the DLC, Democratic Leadership Council EXTREME Right Wing of the Democratic Party. For example, if the choices of the vote for President were between EXTREME Conservative DLC Hillary Clinton or any DLCer and Moderate Republican Chuck Hagle, then I would vote hands down for Chuck Hagel. If the vote is between DLC Hillary and John McCain, I may not vote at all, although I probably would vote for John McCain, since the grassroots would have a better chance with John McCain than Lobbying Al From's superficial Conservative EXTREME DLC Hillary or whatever DLCer that will follow the EXTREME DLC platform.

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

I would really hate to vote against the Democratic Party, but if the DLC is the Democratic Party Platform, then the Grassroots has no choice, because the DLC does not represent the class and culture of the Grassroots Base of the Democratic Party. The Liberal Republican would be better than the EXTREME DLC.

The only other choice would be a protest vote by writing in Governor Howard Dean, which is what I more than likely would do if faced with the above situation.

WE THE PEOPLE, the Grassroots MAJORITY, must not allow DLC Conservative Right EXTREME faux Democratic Party representation of the Grassroots LEFT to be elected in any office of United States Government, Federal or State.

WE MUST KEEP STANDING UP WITH THE DEMOCRATS PARTY NO MORE REPUBLICANS,SO KEEP STANDING UP MY PEOPLE'S

The Democrat Loosership Committee needs to be fired, like yesterday, for sure.
Voting Republican is not the way to change the DLC's Republi-lite minds.
Republicans are so lock-step with their lies, corruption and kissing up to K-street, that I don't think there are any moderate Republicans left.
It would be far better to be sure to get as many people as possible to vote the primaries, and keep supporting the candidates who really represent the people, any way you can. Money, signs & stickers, working for their campaign, whatever, we have to get behind the populists 100%!
In the mean time, support the populist candidates, even if you, your friends, family, and your cousin's yellow dog have to write them in.
Don't forget that the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate is also up for election in 2008. We need to keep the pressure on the DNC/DLC so they will know that WE AREN'T FORGETTING!
If the Republi-lites don't do the job we want them to do, they can be fired just like Republicans!
THEY WORK FOR US! NOT K-STREET!!!

how does this help small businesses???

YES MY PEOPLE'S KEEP STANDING UP FOR THE GOOD OF ALL OF US THE POOR PEOPLE'S MUST KEEP STANDING NOW AND ALL WAYS, DR KING THE POOR PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN IS THE ONLY WAY POOR POWER

***********Legalizing an Underclass***********
By David Bacon
TomPaine.com

Monday 05 February 2007

Oakland, California - Of all the supporters of corporate immigration reform, Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff is the most honest. The day of the notorious raids at the Swift and Company meatpacking plants, he told the media the raids would show Congress the need for "stronger border security, effective interior enforcement and a temporary-worker program." Bush wants, he said, "a program that would allow businesses that need foreign workers, because they can't otherwise satisfy their labor needs, to be able to get those workers in a regulated program."

Chertoff is hardly the only voice in D.C. using raids to justify guest worker programs. Cecilia Muñoz, head of National Council of La Raza (NCLR), is another. Those deported in December were among the millions of undocumented workers who came after Congress passed the last immigration amnesty in 1986. Since legislators at the time didn't consider people who would come in following years, "perhaps the most tragic consequences are the terrible human costs of workplace raids," she mourns. New guest worker programs will give future migrants legal status, she claims, and protect them from the migra.

The raids do cause terrible suffering. But Muñoz and other Washington insiders actually supported bills last year that mandate the same worksite enforcement Chertoff carries out today. More raids were a price they were willing to pay (or willing to let others pay) for the guest worker programs they wanted.

Today, many Congressional leaders - Democrats and Republicans - want to allow corporations and contractors to recruit hundreds of thousands of workers a year outside of the U.S. and put them to work here on temporary visas. Labor schemes like this have a long history. From 1942 to 1964, the Bracero Program recruited temporary immigrants. They were exploited, cheated, and deported if they tried to go on strike. Growers pitted them against workers already in the country to drive down wages. César Chávez, Ernesto Galarza and Bert Corona all campaigned to get the program repealed.

Advocates of today's programs do everything they can to avoid association with the bitter "bracero" label. They used "guest worker" until that name also developed an ill repute. Now they prefer other euphemisms - "essential workers," or just "new workers." We don't live in a magical world, however. You can't clean up an unpleasant reality by renaming it.

Current guest worker programs allow labor contractors to maintain blacklists of workers who work slowly or demand rights. Anyone who makes trouble doesn't get rehired to work in the U.S. again. Public interest lawyers spend years in court, trying just to get back wages for cheated immigrants. The Department of Labor almost never decertifies a contractor for this abuse.

Guest workers labor under the employer's thumb. Standing up for a union or minimum wage is risky. Under current programs, and in the new Congressional proposals, if workers lose their jobs they must leave, making deportation a punishment for being unemployed. No one gets unemployment insurance, disability or workers' compensation payments. Companies save money and avoid bad publicity by sending injured workers back home, where healthcare is virtually unavailable.

But Muñoz and others argue that Congress can allow guest workers to go to court. Our legal system is such a poor protector of workers' rights today, however, that in 30 percent of all organizing drives, workers (both citizens and immigrants) are illegally fired, with virtually no remedies or penalties on employers. Arguing that lawyers can protect immigrants on temporary work visas is preposterous. These problems aren't aberrations, curable with legal fine print.

By their nature, guest worker programs are low-wage schemes, intended to supply plentiful labor to corporate employers at a price they want to pay. Companies don't recruit guest workers so they can pay them more, but to pay them less.

According to Rob Rosado, director of legislative affairs for the American Meat Institute, meatpackers want a guest worker program, but not a basic wage guarantee for those workers. "We don't want the government setting wages," he says. "The market determines wages."

Major Senate sponsors of guest worker bills don't believe the government should even set a minimum wage for anyone, immigrant or citizen. John McCain, John Cornyn, James Kyl, Larry Craig and Chuck Hegel all just voted for an amendment to repeal the federal minimum wage entirely. Making them responsible for guest worker wages is putting the fox in charge of the chickens.

And it's not just wages. The schemes create a second tier of workers with fewer rights and less job security. They have none of the social benefits U.S. workers won in the New Deal - retirement, unemployment and disability insurance. Instead of including new immigrants in these and other social programs, giving them legal residence and rights, Congress would create a huge workforce without them. Corporations that have pushed for eliminating these standards for everyone would be halfway there.

That's why workers, unions and community organizations have opposed guest worker programs, but also why corporations want them. Starting in the late 1990s, companies organized a shadowy lobby group, the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC) which today encompasses over 40 huge employer associations, including Wal-Mart, Marriott, Tyson Foods and the Association of Builders and Contractors. They recruited the Cato Institute to produce guest worker recommendations, which President Bush repeats almost word-for-word. The hard-right Manhattan Institute provides additional cover.

The corporate lobby made other inroads as well. John Gay, who heads the National Restaurant Association and EWIC, is now board chair of the National Immigration Forum, a major Washington player. NCLR's list of corporate sponsors includes Wal-Mart and 14 other multinationals. Even two unions - the Service Employees and UNITE HERE - supported the Senate guest worker compromise last year.

The question Congress is deciding isn't "what can stop immigration?" With over 180 million people in the world living outside their countries of origin, nothing can. Migration begins when people are displaced. In the countries that are the main sources of migration to the U.S., most migration is caused by economic dislocation - people can no longer survive as farmers or workers. Other migrants fled the wars that raged in Central America.

NAFTA, CAFTA and U.S.-sponsored economic reforms, along with U.S. military intervention, uprooted millions of people, leaving them little options other than coming north. Corporations like Wal-Mart and Marriott wrote U.S. trade policy to improve their investment opportunities abroad. Now they also want guest worker programs to channel people displaced by those policies into their U.S. operations. Often those leaving home are among the most skilled and educated. Their departure makes it even harder for their countries to progress.

This flow of forced migration may not stop in the near future, but changing pro-corporate trade policies would reduce the pressure on people to leave home. Unsurprisingly, that's not on EWIC's agenda.

The real question Congress is deciding is the status of people once they're here. Other proposals - those from outside the Beltway - would give immigrants far greater rights and much more equality than guest worker programs. Congress could, for instance,

* give permanent residence visas, or green cards, to people already here. Those visas don't require people to stay, but give them the chance to come and go - to work, study or take care of family members in the U.S. or in their home country. They can't be deported if they lose a job.

* expand the number of green cards available for new migrants, opening the door to legal immigration far enough to accommodate those now coming illegally. Most immigrants already come through family networks. Making family reunification easier would help them and strengthen communities.

* allow people to apply for green cards, in the future, after they've been here a few years. The U.S. wouldn't develop the huge undocumented population it has today.

* stop the enforcement program that has led to thousands of deportations and firings, and a border so heavily militarized that migrants cross, and die, in the most dangerous areas.

* prohibit companies from recruiting outside the U.S. They can always hire immigrants with green cards here, and green card holders are in a much better position to demand rights and higher wages.

It's not likely that many corporations will support such a program. That's why those who claim to represent the interests of immigrants in Washington must choose whose side they're really on.

Journalist/photographer David Bacon is the author of The Children of NAFTA and the recent Communities Without Borders, a photodocumentary on transnational communities.

-------

Ironically, the people who are supporting the criminalization of illegal immigrants are only supporting the sociopathic sweat shops which employ them.
Without any protection from the law, these economic refugees have no redress when they are made to work overtime without pay, work in conditions that violate EPA and OSHA standards, no medical care when the workplace conditions destroy their health, and have no one to turn to when they are cheated out of their wages by their employers, which is a common occurrence.
Under the "get tough" conditions, the workers who complain find the INS knocking on their doors because of a "tip", and are shipped back across the border, the employer pocketing any back wages the deported workers are owed.
These "get tough on illegals" supporters are usually the same people who will benefit from these economic refugees' plight under the laws they are demanding.
They have no plan to hire US citizens who have rights and will complain about mistreatment.
If people who are pushing the "get tough" laws really wanted to be fair, they need to get tough on these unethical employers, and support the end to the "free" trade agreements that have caused the economic hardships that brought them here in the first place.

thank you guys we thank you so much we needed this money to keep are country strong. God bless you all.

Oh my, the "seeking" freak is still seeking. Oh well, what do you expect from a troll?

Seeking-Phoenix freak, there's lots of things you can do, but for you i whould suggest to find a good psychiotrist. There's a little chance that maybe,(not for sure), but maybe, he'll be able to help you "obtain the knowledge and the truth".

Keep up the great work!

Thank you guys for everything you do!!!! You all are so awesome. The Democrats really are working and fighting. Tight! So hopefully we can get a little break for the next two years, but then, we just have to do ALL we can to get our Democratic Candidate elected. We, of course, have to act now, but at least we know that our "background" is safe, for it's trully ours. The nation really does put its trust in the Democratic party and It supports it like never before. Man! I can see it all around, in my home state, at my college, at work, at home, like everywhere. According to polls around seventy percent of Americans support the Party and its efforts. Fantastic! I guess it's just us, it's WE THE PEOPLE that are different now. It's like waking up after sleeping and being blind for six years in a row. Now we think and act.I am proud to be an American and i'm full of great hope and optimism for our future, for i know that if the American People are not going to give up, things are gonna get better. They are. We just have to keep up the great work and increase our efforts in winning all over. So it's up to us. If we really do all we can, i can't imagine what it's gonna be like in like five years from now or ten years from now. Keep it up!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose
our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
--Abraham Lincoln

WE MUST STOP THIS MADMAN WAR BUSH WITH HIS KKK --- WIS MUST STOP THE HATE THEY ARE KKK TO PEOPLE'S OF HATE AND RACISM PEOPLE'S IN WIS THE KKK

Butte is right. The unfair, supposed Fair Trade Laws of the DLC From/Clintonians have caused the influx of illegals. If you could only earn 9 cents an hour in your country, don't you think you would look for greener pastures in other countries if possible? Of course you would, anybody would.

I don't recall saying that illegal immigrants should enter the US. I said that we need to understand that they are entering the US because they are desperate, because their families are hungry, because they have no hope in their home countries.
What I am saying is that in order to control illegal immigration, we shouldn't target the victims, we should attack the problem at its sources.
The sources are the "free" trade agreements which destroyed Mexican and Central American economies. It's exacerbated by unscrupulous employers who don't want to pay fair wages, or comply with OSHA and EPA laws.
Building walls, and treating economic refugees like felons is like putting a band-aid on a small pox victim. You may feel like you are doing something, and maybe you don't see the sores anymore, but the disease is still there.
Until we take a stand for social justice instead of xenophobic punishment, the problem won't go away.
As for Americans working a lot of these jobs, the majority of employers who depend on illegal immigrants don't want workers that will stand up and demand fair treatment, decent working conditions, reasonable pay, and who will apply for workmans' comp if they are injured on the job.
I certainly do not support the Republican position that we should bring Mexicans in and put them into peonage where they work as pretty much slave labor or be deported if they complain about crappy conditions.
One of the reasons the Bracero program was terminated, was because of the abuses that the employers inflicted on the laborers. If there are no provisions for complaint and redress in any temporary worker program it will be the same way. The Republican plans don't have any redress.
The Democratic party is supposed to be a party of the people and the party of social justice. It's about time we act like it!

If there is no democratic grassroots leader to vote for, then it doesn't matter who you vote for, because all will be Republican or Republican Lite. The only Democrat that I am sure isn't DLC is Kennedy and Dennis Kucinich, therefore, I will probably vote for Dennis Kuccinich.

http://kucinich.us/

Dennis Kucinich spoke the following words before the Democratic National Committee at their Winter Meeting on Friday, February 2, 2007 in Washington , DC:

Watch video

I grew up in the city of Cleveland, the oldest of seven children. My parents never owned a home. We were renters, we kept moving, with each new arrival to our family. We lived in 21 different places, including a couple of cars. I know first hand what happens when someone in the family lacks adequate health care, or daycare or doesn’t have the money for college or can’t afford to pay the utility bills.

I remember where I came from. My priority as President will be to create economic opportunities and prosperity, to rebuild America’s cities, to repair America’s neighborhoods, to restore America’s industry, to renew America’s schools, to reclaim America’s health. I will ask our Democratic Congress to pass a single-payer not for profit health care plan, Medicare for All, a Universal Pre-Kindergarten bill, a Rebuild America’s Infrastructure bill, and legislation to create a cabinet-level Department of Peace and Non-Violence, which takes Dr. King’s dream and makes it an everyday reality.

Of all the candidates for President, I not only voted against the authorization but I have consistently voted against funding the war and I have a 12-point plan devised with the help of international peacekeepers, to bring our troops home and to end the war.
**************************************

Populist is not the solution -- populist just means more are going to go over the cliff.

Kucinich unveils comprehensive exit plan to bring troops home, stabilize Iraq

Dennis J Kucinich, Monday, January 8, 2007, New York City

In November of 2006, after an October upsurge in violence in Iraq, the American people moved decisively to reject Republican rule, principally because of the conduct of the war. Democratic leaders well understand we regained control of the Congress because of the situation in Iraq. However, two months later, the Congress is still searching for a plan around which it can unite to hasten the end of US involvement in Iraq and the return home of 140,000 US troops.

There is a compelling need for a new direction in Iraq, one that recognizes the plight of the people of Iraq, the false and illegal basis of the United States war against Iraq, the realities on the ground which make a military resolution of the conflict unrealistic and the urgent responsibility of the United States, which caused the chaos, to use the process of diplomacy and international law to achieve stability in Iraq, a process which will establish peace and stability in Iraq allow our troops to return home with dignity.

The Administration is preparing to escalate the conflict. They intend to increase troop numbers to unprecedented levels, without establishing an ending date for the so called troop surge. By definition, this escalation means a continuation of the occupation, more troop and civilian casualties, more anger toward the US, more support for the insurgency, more instability in Iraq and in the region, and prolonged civil war at a time when there is a general agreement in the world community that the solution in Iraq must be political not military. Iraq is now a training ground for insurgents who practice against our troops.

What is needed is a comprehensive political process. And the decision is not President Bush's alone to make.

Congress, as a coequal branch of government has a responsibility to assist in the initiation of this process. Congress, under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution has the war-making power. Congress appropriates funds for the war. Congress does not dispense with its obligation to the American people simply by opposing a troop surge in Iraq.

There are 140,000 troops remaining in Iraq right now. What about them? When will they come home? Why would we leave those troops in Iraq when we have the money to bring them home? Soon the President will ask for more money for the war. Why would Congress appropriate more money to keep the troops in Iraq through the end of President Bush's term, at a total cost of upwards of two trillion dollars and thousands of more troop casualties, when military experts say there is no military solution? Our soldiers stand for us in the field, we must to stand for them in our legislature by bringing them home.

It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war and yet continues to fund it. This contradiction runs as a deep fault line through our politics, undermining public trust in the political process and in those elected to represent the people. If you oppose the war, then do not vote to fund it.

If you have money which can be used to bring the troops home or to prosecute the war, do not say you want to bring the troops home while you appropriate money in a supplemental to keep them in Iraq fighting a war that cannot be won militarily. This is why the Administration should be notified now that Congress will not approve of the appropriations request of up to $160 billion in the spring for the purposes of continuing the occupation and the war. Continuing to fund the war is not a plan. It would represent the continuation of disaster.

The US sent our troops into Iraq without a clear mission. We created a financial, military and moral dilemma for our nation and now we are talking about the Iraq war as our problem. The Iraqis are forgotten. Their country has been destroyed: 650,000 casualties, [based on the Lancet Report which surveyed casualties from March of 2003 to July of 2006] the shredding of the social fabric of the nation, civil war, lack of access to food, shelter, electricity, clean drinking water and health care because this Administration, with the active participation of the Congress, authorized a war without reason, without conscience, without international law.

The US thinks in terms of solving our own military, strategic, logistical, and political problems. The US can determine how to solve our problems, but the Iraqi people will have problems far into the future. This requires an intensive focus on the processes needed to stabilize Iraq. If you solve the Iraqi problem you solve the US problem. Any comprehensive plan for Iraq must take into account as a primary matter the conditions and the needs of the Iraqi people, while providing our nation with a means of righting grievous wrongs and taking steps to regain US credibility and felicity within the world community.

I am offering such a plan today. This plan responds to the concerns of a majority of Americans. On Tuesday, when Congress resumes its work, I will present this plan to leadership and members as the only viable alternative to the Bush Administration's policy of continued occupation and escalation. Congress must know that it cannot and must not stand by and watch our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians die.

These are the elements of the Kucinich Plan:

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.

2. .US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1 st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.

Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice.

It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in Bagdhad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.

4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the international community, "This is our policy and we want you to come and help us implement it." The international community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the implementation of failed US policy.

A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the plight of Iraq. The UN is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary General, all countries that have interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent members of the Security Council and the European community, and all Arab nations.

The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate.

It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an even-present danger that the civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN and countries of the region. The regional conference must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize troops.

The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political consensus, to craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for the peacekeeping mission, to implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation and begin the transition to international peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the time the US announces the intention to end the occupation.

The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations. The international security force, under UN direction, will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of handling its own security. The UN can field an international security and peace keeping mission, but such an initiative will not take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties.

Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed.

According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops.

6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create, participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting power relationships.

For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the majority fear they will not be allowed to government even though they are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay for the sins of Saddam.

A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation.

It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with those who are seen as Baathists.

The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and Iranians.

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis.

8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.

9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization.

Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current Iraqi constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central government gets nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq. An Iraqi National Oil Trust should be established to guarantee the oil assets will be used to create a fully functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms established protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of Iraq.

10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs.

11.Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank. \n\n\n

12 .International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq.

In 2002, I led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush Administration's plans to go to war in Iraq. I organized 125 Democrats to vote against the Iraq war resolution. The analysis I offered at that time stands out in bold relief for its foresight when compared to the assessments of many who today aspire to national leadership. Just as the caution I urged four years ago was well-placed, so the plan I am presenting today is workable, and it responds to the will of the American people, expressed this past November. This is a moment for clarity and foresight. This is a moment to take a new direction in Iraq. One with honor and dignity. One which protects our troops and rescues Iraqi civilians. One which repairs our relationship with Iraqis and with the world. Thank you.

http://kucinich.us/

Senators Dennis Kucinich and Ted Kennedy are the only members of the Senate that haven't lent their names to the Republican Lite DLC Lobbyist Organization for the Project For the New American Century.

Democrats and Republicans:

Although I hail the increase in wages for the citizens among us who must undergo the hardships of minimum wage employment, I can only question as to why the Republicans refused to pass the increase without tax breaks for small businesses. Small, of course, is defined by those who stalled the legislation for the repression of a minimum wage increase without the associated tax reductions.

We must remember my fellow democrats that a wage increase for the lower-wage employee does not stall small-business expansion, nor does it affect small businesses in any manner. I can only note a Washington Post article dated January 10, 2007, in which an economist by the name of Veronique de Rugy of the American Enterprise Institute stated that "new jobs have been created by both large and small businesses in roughly the same proportion." So, I can only question whether or not the minimum wage increase will stall small business expansion, when historically speaking, businesses, large and small, pass on any increase in operations to the consumers.

U.S. Sent a FREE FOR ALL of Billion of Dollars in CASH [363 TONS of Money] to Iraq on PALLETS

US Sent Pallets of Cash to Baghdad
By Jeremy Pelofsky
Reuters

Tuesday 07 February 2007

The U.S. Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, lawmakers said on Tuesday.

The money, which had been held by the United States, came from Iraqi oil exports, surplus dollars from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program and frozen assets belonging to the ousted Saddam Hussein regime.

Bills weighing a total of 363 tons were loaded onto military aircraft in the largest cash shipments ever made by the Federal Reserve, said Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

"Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone? But that's exactly what our government did," the California Democrat said during a hearing reviewing possible waste, fraud and abuse of funds in Iraq.

On December 12, 2003, $1.5 billion was shipped to Iraq, initially "the largest pay out of U.S. currency in Fed history," according to an e-mail cited by committee members.

It was followed by more than $2.4 billion on June 22, 2004, and $1.6 billion three days later. The CPA turned over sovereignty on June 28.

Paul Bremer, who as the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority ran Iraq after initial combat operations ended, said the enormous shipments were done at the request of the Iraqi minister of finance.

"He said, 'I am concerned that I will not have the money to support the Iraqi government expenses for the first couple of months after we are sovereign. We won't have the mechanisms in place, I won't know how to get the money here,"' Bremer said.

"So these shipments were made at the explicit request of the Iraqi minister of finance to forward fund government expenses, a perfectly, seems to me, legitimate use of his money," Bremer told lawmakers.

Where's the Money?

Democrats led by Waxman also questioned whether the lack of oversight of $12 billion in Iraqi money that was disbursed by Bremer and the CPA somehow enabled insurgents to get their hands on the funds, possibly through falsifying names on the government payroll.

"I have no knowledge of monies being diverted. I would certainly be concerned if I thought they were," Bremer said. He pointed out that the problem of fake names on the payroll existed before the U.S.-led invasion.

The special inspector general for Iraqi reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, said in a January 2005 report that $8.8 billion was unaccounted for after being given to the Iraqi ministries.

"We were in the middle of a war, working in very difficult conditions, and we had to move quickly to get this Iraqi money working for the Iraqi people," Bremer told lawmakers. He said there was no banking system and it would have been impossible to apply modern accounting standards in the midst of a war.

"I acknowledge that I made mistakes and that, with the benefit of hindsight, I would have made some decisions differently," Bremer said.

Republicans argued that Bremer and the CPA staff did the best they could under the circumstances and accused Democrats of trying to score political points over the increasingly unpopular Iraq war.

"We are in a war against terrorists, to have a blame meeting isn't, in my opinion, constructive," said Rep. Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican.

________
Greed, On Purpose or Stupid?? What happened to the Bank in Switzerland???????

Opening Statements and Prosecution Blunders
By Bill Simpich and Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Report

Wednesday 07 February 2007

Ft. Lewis, Washington - On the second day of the court-martial of First Lt. Ehren Watada, it seemed at times that the prosecution witnesses were really defense witnesses.

The day began with opening statements. The prosecution laid out the following charges:

Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 87
The specification: In that 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, U.S. Army, did, at or near Fort Lewis, Wash., on or about 22 June 2006, through design miss the movement of Flight Number [redacted], with which he was required in the course of duty to move.

Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 133
Specification 1: In that 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, U.S. Army, did, at or near Tacoma, Wash., on or about 7 June 2006, take part in a public press conferen