Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (74657)	3/13/2007 2:07:00 PM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

The Democrats' Fraudulent Iraq Exit Plan By KEVIN ZEESE The Democrats took the majority of both the House and Senate on January 4th, 2007 since then 192 members of the Armed Services have died as have countless Iraqi civilians. With power comes responsibility, so voters should know that this is now the Democrats War and every death and casualty is their responsibility. When they came to power their leadership said they would not use the "power of the purse" to end the war. But pressure from voters opposed to the Iraq quagmire has changed their tune. Last week an obviously frustrated Rep. David Obey told Marine Mom, Tina Richardsin a Capitol Hill hallway encounter that his appropriations bill would de-authorize the war. I went to Capitol Hill as part of a support delegation for Tina Richards this Monday to return to Rep. Obey's office to seek clarification of his hallway comments. There has been a lot of deal making by Congressional leaders to line up support for the Iraq War supplemental. They are adding billions in goodies for constituents, for Midwest farmers, avocado growers, communities that have lost bases, Katrina relief, Veterans and other goodies to gather votes. The headline that the Democratic leadership would like voters to hear is "troops out of Iraq by August 2008." But the headline is more a wolf in sheep's clothing than a reality. After hearing details of the bill from Obey's appropriations staff person the loopholes may define the law more than the headline. For most in the peace movement an August 2008 deadline for withdrawal is already way too slow. Why the delay? On November 17, 2005 Rep. Jack Murtha called for redeployment within six months. Here we are sixteen months later and the Democratic leadership is talking about redeployment in seventeen months! Six months has turned into 33 months and in fact the August deadline is illusory. How many lives U.S. and Iraqi will have been lost in this quagmire over this time period? But, that is not the worst of it. As Rep. Maxine Waters, the Chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus point out, a few weeks ago the Congress passed a non-binding resolution against the so-called "surge" but this appropriation will actually pay for the surge which has grown since their vote by more than 8,200 troops. Indeed, the Democrats are poised to give Bush up to $20 billion more than he asked for! The appropriation initially was going to require that only combat ready troops could be sent to Iraq. But in order to please "Blue Dog Democrats" and some Republicans the bill is now merely a requirement that Bush report to Congress if non-combat ready troops are used in Iraq. Since when do conservatives want us sending troops to wars who are not fully trained or equipped for combat? Combat readiness has become a symbolic requirement that will at best embarrass the commander in chief but it will not stop deployment of troops unprepared for battle. And, it keeps getting worse. Regarding the August 2008 deadline not all troops are being redeployed (the bill does not say to where). The bill leaves four categories of soldiers who can remain in Iraq. These include troops to guard the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. This is the largest Embassy in the world a city within a city so who knows how many troops that will take. Also, troops involved in diplomatic and consular affairs will remain in Iraq. But, the two big categories allow troops to remain in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda and to train the Iraqi military and police. President Bush has called Iraq one front in the war on terror, where the main target in the war on terror is Al Qaeda. Indeed, "we're in Iraq to fight them over there rather than over here," according to the president. Further, he claimed that Saddam and Osama were working together and Vice President Cheney still makes that claim. And, throughout the Iraq War the resistance in Iraq has been defined as terrorists and there have been no solid numbers regarding how many Al Qaeda fighters are in Iraq. And, can you imagine the intelligence-leak drumbeat as that deadline approaches. There will be story after story planted in the establishment media about Al Qaeda coming to Iraq in preparation for the U.S. exit. This hole is so large by itself to make the Democratic exit strategy a virtual mirage. And, then there is the training of Iraqi military and police. How many trainers will the U.S. have for an Iraqi military and police that will be in the very high hundreds of thousands, perhaps over a million? Will training include U.S. soldiers being embedded in the Iraq military or police as part of training them? This is another gigantic loophole that makes the withdrawal more a "stay the course" plan then a real withdrawal. But, the thing that makes this supplemental appropriation particularly dangerous is the Democratic leadership decision not to raise the question of forbidding military force against Iran. The Bush administration has been beating the war drums for a military attack on Iran for months. It had been reported that the spending bill would have required congressional approval, with some exceptions, before using military force against Iran. The Congressional Quarterly reported on March 8, 2007 that "The influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee also is working to keep the language out, said an aide to a pro-Israel lawmaker." Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the consigliore for the hard right Israeli lobby in the House of Representatives a congressman who was a civilian volunteer with the Israeli army during the first Gulf War, is quoted as predicting "that the language would ultimately not be included in the supplemental on the House side." On the 8th CQ reported "a Democratic leadership aide said there are no plans to remove the provision. 'There's heat,' the leadership aide acknowledged. 'We've heard their concerns, but we think it's likely to remain on the bill.'" Less than a week later it seems the hard right Israeli lobby, which is often the puppet master of U.S. foreign policy, has gotten the provision removed. Thus, the Congress has decided to put up no barriers to a Bush attack on Iran. In hearings before Sen. Russell Feingold this January legal experts said that the original use of force resolution, the power of the president to act to defend U.S. national security and the authority of the president to introduce troops into "hostilities, but not into a war" may be sufficient to allow military action against Iran absent congressional action. If Congress put up barriers requiring Congressional approval or restricting the use of funds appropriated than that would limit the president's authority. But without Congressional action, Bush could act militarily against Iran. So, the slow exit of the Democratic leadership will in the best case scenario be a partial exit that could keep tens of thousands (or more) troops in the Iraq quagmire. And, their failure to curtail the president's authority regarding Iran will give him the unbridled path he needs to go forward with military action against that country. This supplemental may result in a bigger Mid-East war in 2007, rather than a real exit from Iraq. Is this what the November 2006 anti-war mandate was for? Kevin Zeese is director of DemocracyRising.US and co-founder of VotersForPeace.US.

To: American Spirit who wrote (74657)	3/13/2007 2:14:19 PM
From: LTK007	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Tell me who you are going to vote for in 2008 so i can NOT vote for that person. Your lack of standards are beyond belief. i well repeat A.S. you are why the Democratic Party Sucks. You don't give a damn about what a candidate be other than it be a Democrat. What a BOT you are. There are "Yellow Dog" Republicans and "Blue Dog" Democrats both are mindless drone party loyalist that would vote for a dog to hold office if it was on their party's ticket. You are a "Blue Dog" democrat.

To: American Spirit who wrote (74657)	3/13/2007 5:37:31 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

WAYNE MADSEN REPORT: March 13, 2007 -- Our White House Press Corps sources report further disturbing news about President George W. Bush. Our sources have witnessed a clearly inebriated Bush approaching members of the press corps and making rude comments, including one particularly crude remark about First Lady Laura Bush. In that case, Bush, nodding toward Laura, called her a "c**t." While Bush's drinking is no secret to the White House press contingent, that particular comment was reportedly the worst they have heard uttered by Bush. Our sources also report that Laura Bush's stays at the White House are less frequent and that her overnight trips to the Mayflower Hotel often coincide with the president's drunken binges. Note: Some of our female readers were shocked to see the "C" word in the above news item. This editor wants to make it clear that word was used by George W. Bush to denigrate his wife. It was his word, not mine. It is important that the public knows what kind of person Mr. Bush is by the offensive words he uses. The editor also wants to make clear that the President chose a public press gaggle to use this word -- that is not a private moment between him and his wife. If Mrs. Bush feels her privacy has been violated, she must understand that it is her responsibility to herself, her children, and the nation to end this abusive relationship by legally separating from the President and becoming a role model for other women around the country and the world who find themselves locked into similar abusive marriages. Nevertheless, we have "asterisked" the word in question. However, Mr. Bush cannot asterisk his own vile words. waynemadsenreport.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (74657)	3/13/2007 5:55:18 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Politics is the art of destroying one’s enemies and rewarding one’s friends. By this standard, the Bush regime is the most capable administration in American history... onlinejournal.com The rise of the Rove Reich By Mike Whitney Online Journal Contributing Writer Mar 13, 2007, 01:20 Politics is the art of destroying one’s enemies and rewarding one’s friends. By this standard, the Bush regime is the most capable administration in American history. Bush and his fellows have shown time and again that they have sharp elbows and can be cold-blooded political street fighters. The “Swift-boating” of John Kerry, Dan Rather and Joseph Wilson are just a few of the more familiar examples. Each was singled out as a potential rival by high-ranking members of the administration and summarily drawn-and-quartered by assassins in the far-right media. The unexpected sacking of eight US attorneys is another example of the administration’s astonishing proficiency at destroying its enemies, although the attorneys in question were not the “real targets” per se. The purpose of the firings was to use the justice system to conduct personal attacks on members of the Democratic leadership, either by indicting them prior to elections or challenging the results of recent balloting. The intention was to strengthen the “one party” system of Karl Rove’s dreams. This, of course, is a much more serious charge than “outing” a CIA agent (Valerie Plame) or slandering a decorated veteran. (John Kerry) It is a direct attack on the two-party system and the foundations of democratic government. Paul Krugman gives a good explanation of how this works in his latest column, “Department of Injustice.” Krugman recalls how New Jersey’s US attorney “issued subpoenas in connection with allegations of corruption on the part of Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, two months before the 2006 election.” The news of the subpoenas was quickly leaked to local news media. It was a deliberate and obvious attempt to manipulate the upcoming election by putting Menendez under a cloud of criminal indictment. If it had worked, Republicans would have held the majority in the Senate and the same trends in authoritarian legislation would have persisted for the next two years. Congressional investigations last week indicate that other US attorneys have experienced similar “politically motivated” meddling designed to crush the Democratic Party by decapitating the leadership. It’s clear that the administration’s maneuverings are an essential part of their strategy to maintain a permanent GOP “lock on power.” This is serious business. Watergate pales in comparison. Karl Rove is actively sabotaging the democratic process by stacking the US Attorneys office with Bush foot soldiers. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has denied charges that politics played any part in the recent firings, but Krugman proves otherwise. Since Bush took office in 2000, US attorneys across the nation have investigated 298 Democrats, but only 67 Republicans. Clearly the office is being used to carry out personal vendettas to remove Democrats from power and fortify a one party system: the Rove Reich. Krugman also adds this revealing detail from the Rovian chronicle, which further strengthens his theory: “Let’s not forget that Karl Rove’s candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove’s time in Texas: ‘In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.’” Over the years, Rove has perfected the politics of personal destruction and transformed it into an art form. It’s clear now that the Gonzales 8 were tossed overboard because they clung to their standards and refused to become political henchmen for the gangsters at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We can assume that the new appointees are neither true conservatives nor traditional Republicans but, rather, party loyalists who will faithfully execute directives from the Bush Politburo. Alas, the Bush regime is not in the business of governing at all, but politics. And, once again, they’ve proved that they’re damn good at it. Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal