The Machine

I put my Impeach sign out in 2002.
Maybe the chance he was able to get in twice without a legitimite vote has something to do with his grip on power.

What can $611,000,000,000 (cost of Iraq war) buy?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/gallery/251007war_costs/
see it graphically

Not only isn't Bush impeached, but his brother isn't prosecuted enough, and his friend Rove is writing for magazines and going on speaking tours
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/washington/07neil.html?ex=1195621200&en=58973c304ec90b16&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Where is justice?

I am SO HAPPY! I just got a call from the DCCC and they were asking me for $$$$.

I told them that I was not donating time or money to them because the Democrats were not ending the war and not impeaching Bush. They tried to respond with ,'Ma'am are you aware it takes 2/3rds to impeach?" And I said, "Heck YES, I'm aware of that. But I'm also aware that he's already committed impeachable offenses by lying about the war, by refusing to give documentation to Congress, by treason, by spying, and that IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS are necessary for DOCUMENTING EACH AND EVERY ONE OF HIS CRIMES. And until these hearing are held of course the 2/3rds is impossible to get. BUT AFTER those are DOCUMENTED and on the OFFICIAL RECORD, then the 2/3rds and the public support would be easy."

So then she tried to say that "It's the Republicans' fault." So I said, "You guys said that when you were the minority. The fact is that you can not point a finger when YOU have failed to put impeachment on the table. And you've failed to put the Republicans failures and crimes ON THE RECORD."

I said, "You are not getting one red cent more from me! And furthermore, your inactivity on Impeachment and your focus on 08 is causing you to lose the 18-20 year old college students who are future democratic voters. THEY understand that the PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED CRIMES. THEY UNDERSTAND that the DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVES are just pointing fingers instead of doing their job. AND they are losing people like me FORMER Republicans, former Bush voters, current Democratic voters, and current independents. Heck, even my brother a conservative Republican wants Bush and Cheney impeached!"

I further added, "I will not vote for Clinton or Obama or any candidate who doesn't start or vote for Impeachment. Unless Edwards, Obama, or Hilary start advocating impeachment, I will not work for them or give money to them. Right now, I will vote for Kucinich or I will write in a candidate before I vote for anyone who will not impeach."

And so now, I'm taking a public stand.

Ralpheh

Kucinich is a nice guy, well-intensioned.
We should have a Department of Peace.
Too bad he bankrupted Cleveland.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Corporations.htm

Next.
November 17, 200

@@@@@

1) Yeah, nobody is perfect

2) How did he get elected to the House of Reps if he bankrupted Cleveland?

3) Clinton is far worse, IMHO; worse on the issues, more corrupted by special interests, less able and intelligent (Hillary MADE YET ANOTHER gaffe regarding "wanting diamonds" during the last debate... but hey who's counting.. LOL )

Too bad life is complex, eh?!

I still do not have a horse in this race.
November 17, 2007 12:14 AM

@@@@@

Not where Hillary is concerned. It is surprisingly easy - there is a voice that says to me, rather loudly "HILLARY - YUCK!!!!"

Watch this video of Hillary and see if you don't get sick to your stomach:

Next....

(by R Silverstein)

These posters were spotted by Arianna Huffington when she attended a the Google Zeitgeist Conference. They were done by R. Silverstein, the ad executive who did the "Got Milk" campaign. Considering himself a visual person, he had decided to "blog visually." He considers them "rough drafts."

The first poster is the persons, or should we call them perpetrators? The other are places & events. Silverstein thinks the final products could be at least three feet long were people to make additions!

http://www.silencedmajority.blogs.com

Ralpheh
That's pretty standard - the big people against the little people.
It's been that way since the beginning of time. It sucks.

You go Sparrow.

I bet that phone solicitor had no idea who they were about to call.

HAHAHA!

NMP,

I love those posters, Very impressive and... right on.

They really do neatly reflect madness.

" I'm also aware that he's already committed impeachable offenses by lying about the war, by refusing to give documentation to Congress, by treason, by spying, and that IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS are necessary for DOCUMENTING EACH AND EVERY ONE OF HIS CRIMES. And until these hearing are held of course the 2/3rds is impossible to get. BUT AFTER those are DOCUMENTED and on the OFFICIAL RECORD, then the 2/3rds and the public support would be easy."

Hell yeah Sister!

Sparrow

Thank you for standing up against those who want the money - but won't do the job.

Olympia Port Protests

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVASp4CGh94
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTx4lNFADCw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgi5ESpueX8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM2tNL_roBY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOkn2Fg7R8w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3hsDZHg71g

And so now, I'm taking a public stand.

Good for you sparrow, go get em.

Ally
but won't do the job

But sparrow won't live with the regret that she did not stand up to them and say NO, not untill you do what the people elected you to do IMPEACH THE BASTARDS, and that's what counts and I bet there are a hell of a lot more people doing the same as sparrow now.

I'm glad Congress left for Thanksgiving & Bush is hanging. Thanks to the Republicans who voted with the Democrats.

I meant hanging like suspense not like Saddam ..

Nice shot, nmp...

I meant shot like a chance, not like John Wilkes Boothe.

Then again...

I used to hold Repubs and their supporters responsible for the Tard in the WH and all of it's negative consequences, now I blame everyone, including myself.

Phil N. deBlanc

Once in awhile they do something right ..

Senate Stays In Session to Block Recess Appointments
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111707A.shtml
The Washington Post's Paul Kane reports: "Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nevada), in a showdown with the White House over executive branch nominations, refused yesterday to formally adjourn the chamber for a planned two-week Thanksgiving break in order to thwart President Bush's ability to make recess appointments."

For this I might fly to Washington DC and deliver Harry Reid a turkey sandwich or something.

That's pretty standard - the big people against the little people.
It's been that way since the beginning of time. It sucks.
November 17, 2007 1:39 PM

@@@@@@

What you are saying is not complex at all - things are pretty bad. If Bush can fool 75% of the American people and 65% of media, the country is in bad shape and in decline.

Just the fact that two of the questions in the CNN debate - drivers licenses and merit pay for teachers - having little or nothing to do with national priorities, took up 15 to 20 minutes of discussion time, indicates that the media and much of the American people are not really interested in the major issues facing the country.

I can tell you that in the blogosphere and YouTube the debate is entirely different - it is another world. Ron Paul absolutely dominates the Republican debate on You Tube - the Paul-heads reject the war and oppose big government and the government's/Bush's abuse of power (this includes wiretapping, torture, the Patriot act). They even support impeachment.. LOL. Their videos regularly score 10,000 hits to 50,000 hits and many make it above 100,000. Hillary's videos, usually, are ignored because she does not allow the posting of any comments or video responses to her lame/canned videos (in other words, there is no "discussion")

On the Dem side, the biggest hit video (now at almost 4 million hits) was the parody video slamming Hillary, titled "Vote Different" (using the Apple ad themed on "1984"). Next comes, I believe, the Edwards video "Parsing the truth" about HIllary's flip-flopping in her answers during a single debate. This video has around 300,000 hits. This week Kucinich has two top-rate videos....

Other than these videos, there has been virtually NO DISCUSSION of the issues or the candidates on the Dem side. This is mostly because HIllary and Obama refuse to allow discussions on their You Tube videos.

This is the state of our Non-Democracy.... and Non Free Press.

Dozens of corpses found in Iraq mass grave
Baghdad grave in former al-Qaida stronghold is third found this month

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21848178/

Hey monkey, glad your back, from Down Under

Pentagon Cover Up
15,000 or More US Deaths in Iraq War?
By MIKE WHITNEY

The Pentagon has been concealing the true number of American casualties in the Iraq War. The real number exceeds 15,000 and CBS News can prove it.

CBS's Investigative Unit wanted to do a report on the number of suicides in the military and "submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Defense". After 4 months they received a document which showed--that between 1995 and 2007-- there were 2,200 suicides among "active duty" soldiers.

Baloney.

The Pentagon was covering up the real magnitude of the "suicide epidemic". Following an exhaustive investigation of veterans' suicide data collected from 45 states; CBS discovered that in 2005 alone "there were at least 6,256 among those who served in the armed forces. That's 120 each and every week in just one year."

That is not a typo. Active and retired military personnel, mostly young veterans between the ages of 20 to 24, are returning from combat and killing themselves in record numbers. We can assume that "multiple-tours of duty" in a war-zone have precipitated a mental health crisis of which the public is entirely unaware and which the Pentagon is in total denial.

If we add the 6,256 suicide victims from 2005 to the "official" 3,865 reported combat casualties; we get a sum of 10,121. Even a low-ball estimate of similar 2004 and 2006 suicide figures, would mean that the total number of US casualties from the Iraq war now exceed 15,000.

That's right; 15,000 dead US servicemen and women in a war that--as yet--has no legal or moral justification.

CBS interviewed Dr. Ira Katz, the head of mental health at the Department of Veteran Affairs. Katz attempted to minimize the surge in veteran suicides saying, "There is no epidemic of suicide in the VA, but suicide is a major problem."

Maybe Katz is right. Maybe there is no epidemic. Maybe it's perfectly normal for young men and women to return from combat, sink into inconsolable depression, and kill themselves at greater rates than they were dying on the battlefield. Maybe it's normal for the Pentagon to abandon them as soon as soon they return from their mission so they can blow their brains out or hang themselves with a garden hose in their basement. Maybe it's normal for politicians to keep funding wholesale slaughter while they brush aside the casualties they have produced by their callousness and lack of courage. Maybe it is normal for the president to persist with the same, bland lies that perpetuate the occupation and continue to kill scores of young soldiers who put themselves in harm's-way for their country.

It's not normal; it's is a pandemic---an outbreak of despair which is the natural corollary of living in constant fear; of seeing one's friends being dismembered by roadside bombs or children being blasted to bits at military checkpoints or finding battered bodies dumped on the side of a riverbed like a bag of garbage.

The rash of suicides is the logical upshot of the U.S. war on Iraq. Returning soldiers are traumatized by their experience and now they are killing themselves in droves. Maybe we should have thought about that before we invaded.

Check it out the video at: CBS News "Suicide Epidemic among Veterans"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/cbsnews_investigates/main3496471.shtml

Woz
It was the same for Vietnam. 55,000 US servicemen died and after awhile, that number had been exceeded by suicides! Pentagon and others denied it, of course, but it could be documented.

Now the latest thing I've heard is that commanding officers are kicking people out of the military who had post-traumatic stress and other mental problems as "personality disordered" - they then get no medical or educational benefits & a bad record, hard to employ, no help.

Ralpheh
I think the different emphasis on YouTube means that people are turning to alternative forms of media because MSM is completely skewed and unfair and propagandistic. I do believe you - I quit watching television in 1991. That's a long time ago. We are not that different from places like Pakistan where people are having to get the real scoop from underground.

I see Kayakbiker is back from his convention in Beantown.
He is reporting on something called Dickipedia.
http://www.silencedmajority.blogs.com - top thread.
Submit your choices.

Lock these two crony brothers up and throw away the key - high level business types - one joined the CIA and helped Blackwater get contracts and his brother joined the State Department and was supposed to investigate Blackwater.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/us/17brothers.html?em&ex=1195448400&en=5374f2f973ccdb31&ei=5087%0A

OMG!

I see the congress is considering all important hearings on steriods in baseball!!!

Well, I mean, it is about freaking time they got to the bottom of what is wrong with this country and faced the most serious issue of our time. Steriods. IN BASEBALL !

That'll fix everything.

Uh.Oh.

Saudi minister warns of dollar collapse

http://www.thebusiness.co.uk/news-and-analysis/358346/saudi-minister-warns-of-dollar-collapse.thtml

He did not know his mic was on.

US & Pakistan: Strange Coincidence of Nukes
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/17/21733/280
You don't want to read this if you want to sleep.

Christy

The real problem with baseball is the MLB commission turning it into a pro-W theocratic sport.

Ralpheh, for a guy who doesn't want Hillary for president, you certainly provide us with way more information about her than anyone else in the race.

Forgive my observation, but methinks Ralpheh doth protest too much.

Most of us don't like Hillary. But every day we are guaranteed to see and read more about her than any other contender.

sparrow - wow! A huge whistling from a little bird! Kind of like the canary in the coalmine, huh. Until those in government are aware that the people who put them there, are angry and sick of the blaming and doing nothing, nothing will change. You sure told them. Hopefully, more will follow your example.

How can we not impeach Cheney?

Has Dick Cheney Lost His Mind?

Fox News endorsing Hillary:

YUCK................

Forgive my observation, but methinks Ralpheh doth protest too much.

Most of us don't like Hillary. But every day we are guaranteed to see and read more about her than any other contender.
November 18, 2007 3:58 AM

@@@@@@@@

Hillary is the most hawkish, most elitist and most Republican of the Democratic candidates. If the Dems want to nominate Republican lite, like Hillary, that is their mistake to make.

In my opinion, her vote in favor of the war in 2002 COMPLETELY SINKS her candidacy and her claim to the White House. Hillary has done next to nothing of consequence in her 6 years as senator. Hillary is successful because of "MONEY" and "NAME RECOGNITION". By electing Clinton, we are going to make American history entering a period of the "Dynasty Years of Bush-Clinton". Where Only Two families in America were capable of running the White House: the Bushes and the Clintons...

I would much rather see an ACTUAL CAMPAIGN - rather than the beauty contest and fund raising contest that we see now. It is unfortunate - for the party and the country - that there is not a stronger field of candidates this year. But Obama, Edwards, Biden or Richardson would be an improvement over Hillary - all of whom I could support more readily than Hillary and wouldn't give me that sick feeling in my stomach. The feeling that tells me that Hillary is just a fraud, with lots of ambition.

The most popular political video on You Tube:

Vote Different

Views: 3,871,922
Comments: 14,655 Favorited: 5,518 times Honors: 4 Links: 5
Loading...
Sites Linking to This Video:
91267 clicks from http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/03/19/the-gloves-ha...
52038 clicks from http://www.aolvideoblog.com/2007/03/20/clinton-and-o...
35744 clicks from http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/03/19/well/
24428 clicks from http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,473303,00....
15536 clicks from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/03/05/proobama-vi...
Comments & Responses

oz said:

Ralpheh, for a guy who doesn't want Hillary for president, you certainly provide us with way more information about her than anyone else in the race.

@@@@@

Do you have a comment on Hillary's talk about the Iraq war in 2003?

I'll take Bill Clinton's White House tenure any damn day of the week over the two Shrubs, and I completely loathe the idear of Hillary, for about a hundred reasons.

I truly believe we are doomed as a nation, and the next several decades will be dark and wrought with peril... and it's the citizens fault (with the exception of the few brave ones who have put their nuts & bolts on the line to try to undo this nightmare ).

America let this happen to itself, but is entirely too lazy, stupid and cowardly to have stopped it.

That's what history will say, I guaranfriggintee it.

How can you take Bill Clinton's White House but loathe the ideear of Hillary? To me, same diff - either acceptable but not exciting compared to Bush Dynasty, Reagan or any other known GOP leader.

I agree that America let this happen to itself and people are still lining up at Walmarts to buy the Chinese goods etc.

There is a book called "Empire" which details the fall of them all and I think we are number 66, then next are the EU and China.

Remember my mom's old phrase "too big for his britches"? That's what tends to happen to empires.

Ralpheh

I doubt there are too many here who would have Hillary as first choice in the primaries - there may be a few now and again. I am interested in the general phenomena of Democratic Hillary bashing but I quickly got the idea and then it becomes just an irritating perseveration.

This is not a partisan political website.
I just read about Australia, Pakistan, Iran, China.
There are lots of things to talk about.
There is Google news and all the headlines to the left on this site.

Constantly turning the conversation back to the other
constitutes trolling, despite the fact that it doesn't happen
constantly.

My opinioin about any of the candidates...in general.

I believe that we shouldn't do the other side's job for them. That means, of course there are times when someone has done something that bugs me. But I have decided to make my choice about how I will observe or think about the candidates.

My choice is to try to look at the positive things they've done that I can approve of and appreciate. Like Universal Health care. (Ok...impeachment!) But also, I'd like to use my voice, as I did with the caller yesterday, to push them into the direction I want them to go rather than push them away from me.

Frankly, it's like Gravel said at the Y-kos convention that "Any of the candidates on the stage will say anything you want to hear to get elected." But I think if we let them know what they need to do, then maybe we have a better chance of them doing more than just speaking.

All I know is that Rove and the neocons have key-board armys who read these webblogs and look for fodder to use against a candidate. I think, as of now, that I prefer not to provide the fodder.

Go Universal Healthcare.
Go Impeachment.
Stop the war.
Stop the torture.
Bring back jobs.
Bring public finananced campaigns.
Get rid of the corps from our government.
Keep Social Security.
Get rid of the new bankrucpcy bill. And stop the loan sharks from going after our kids.

If a Republican steps up to the plate with those beliefs, then it's possible I may vote for them.

Sparrow
Thanks for reminding me about Gravel!

& here's a kind of depressingly pragmatic piece - that swing voters will want to know what Democrats have to say about security
http://democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_November_14_2007_Security_Memo.pdf

Most Americans want the war over but they want to know "how" -
the religious voters and the military have certain stereotypes about the parties

Sometimes I think it comes down to - do we want to win or do we want to be right? Why can't we rewrite the rules somehow and have it be both?

I don't think I've seen it done but consider that we had too close and even stolen elections - the people haven't been listened to, in the first place!

Then there is this sort of old saw - is it the war or is it the economy?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102709/More-Americans-Saying-Economy-Should-Top-Priority.aspx
Why can't they see that it's both because they're interconnected - why is there no money? why is it messed up? could it have to do with the war?!

It's like when "environmentalism" was avoided as a fringe issue - isn't it about oil? aren't the wars about oil? so obvious but seldom admitted

problem 3

This wingnutty guy - he's going on about how the Dem candidates didn't talk about terra, like it's over - they talked about licenses for immigrants - and jewelry
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/11/18/2007-11-18_despite_a_mortal_terrorist_threat_agains.html
but thinking about the subtext of what he's pointing out here -
Ghouliani willk milk it for all it's worth

I doubt there are too many here who would have Hillary as first choice in the primaries - there may be a few now and again. I am interested in the general phenomena of Democratic Hillary bashing but I quickly got the idea and then it becomes just an irritating perseveration.
November 18, 2007 12:24 PM

@@@@@@

Do you have a comment on Hillary's pro-war talk given in 2003??????????????????????? Does her talk sound just like Bush, Cheney and Rice??

Reality check
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/moneymap.php?cand=RepVDem&zoom=Zip3

The best way to lay all this infighting to rest is to choose the one candidate we can all agree on, by an overwhelming margin.

That would be John Edwards. And if he picks Obama as a running mate, those dark years Monkey speaks of might can be averted. Maybe.

I am personally sick of hillary if for no other reason than she sucks all air and light away from the ones we can agree on.

Ralph,

I have a hillary IWR comment.

She did not do anything that another 96% of democrats didn't do. Her lone vote was not the deciding factor nor was it even highly unusual in a group where virtually ALL OF THEM betrayed us in one fell swoop.

Yes, it was stupid, but she was hardly the only one struck by a sudden cowardly ignorance.

The best way to beat her is to give that light an air back to those who can.

We would never agree on one candidate til we're forced to, after Super Tuesday. Then people have to decide whether they want to be right or to win, or maybe a bit of both - that would be the best. We have a year to go ..

I'd rather spend time tearing down Ghouliani the Crook
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111807Z.shtml

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/18/105812/71
"I Am Starting To Detest Candidate Bashing Diaries" by Turkana

Every one of our candidates is flawed. Every one of our candidates is immeasurably better than any of the Republican candidates. Every one of our candidates is getting more aggressive, as we approach political high noon. Some supporters of every one of our candidates are getting more irrational, as we approach political high noon.

Turkana's diary :: ::
I've said this before: as an undecided voter, the candidate-bashing is not convincing me of anything. Maybe it's working on other undecideds, but I doubt it. All it really does is make some of you candidate-bashers look bad. Because I like some of you, I'm trying to take it all with a big grain of salt. A comet-sized grain of salt. I hope others are, too.

Those of you who are continuing to pummel each other, and each other's candidates, ought to spend some more time reading diaries about the Republican candidates. Perspective is increasingly needed, right now. Criticism of each of the candidates is justified. Mostly on the issues. But much of the criticism is going far beyond that. Much of the criticism is personal, and is of such a level of animosity that I have a hunch a lot of people will leave this site, and leave the cause, once we have a nominee.

I'm not thrilled with any of the candidates, but I will support whomever we nominate. I'm just one small person. Each of you is just one small person. But a congregation of like-minded small people creates a movement. We need to win, next year, and we need to win big. We need to utterly destroy this iteration of the Republican Party, so it can remake itself into something at least minimally sane. Beyond that, we need to remake the Democratic Party, so it champions the best of what we all consider to be Democratic values. That's not going to come easy. It's not going to come soon.

If you're not ready for the long haul, you're not ready. The movement needs us to be ready. Every one of us. Even if we are frustrated by the pace. Even if we are frustrated by the candidates. If you've been paying attention to the IPCC and UNEP, you know that the survival of our species may be at stake. We all know that the survival of our democracy may be at stake. We cannot afford to allow the Republicans to win again. Vent your wrath at them. Work to defeat them. Work for your candidate, but if your candidate doesn't win, be ready to suck it up and help whichever Democrat does.

--- more at the link

I am going over and recommend this diary, which is at the top of the recommended list already.

NMP,

Normally I would agree with you, but we don't usually have an Edwards in there.

During the primaries when Edwards was running against Kerry, I was sure he would take it when I saw virtually every republican I know say they themselves would vote for him. I have never heard republicans jump the ails like that, not with any candidate.

I have never seen a candidate with more broad appeal. His populist message is actually quite timely.

And, here at the democratic base strongholds, there is not a single one of us who would not be comfortable voting for him. Is he perfect? No. But something close enough that he is perfectly acceptable, EVEN TO REPUBLICANS.

I myself am also sick of fighting about hillary and John Kerry. It is way past time to just move on. Let lush limpball sit there and fight a 3 year old battle.

Hillary is elevated to whatever level we put her on. She is important because of good or bad doesn't matter, you've made her important either way. The best way to stop Hillary is ignore her existance. And when someone says 'Hillary' just say 'whatever lady' and move on.

Maybe then we will have time to talk about someone else.

I agree with this commenter:

And we all know if Hillary is our candidate, we'll be hearing all kinds of lies about her. If it's Obama, it will be racism. Edwards - some other swiftboating strategy. We will have to be united in our support of that candidate, even if your only reason is to protect our down-ballot candidates.

We can't afford to lose any Senate or House seats because the grassroots are displeased about the top of the ticket. Likewise state and local offices.

Christy

We are going to have different preferences during the primary. I would as soon see Richardson as Edwards. I like them both and they are in good regions strategically. I don't have a huge concern with Clinton one way or the other, same way I felt about her husband about about Gore. I voted for them but worked for McCarthy and McGovern and later Hart and finally Kerry.

By this time last cycle I was immersed in work for Kerry. Edwards was a fine running mate but Gephart would have been acceptable to me too. Like Kerry, Edwards and Gephart all made moves unacceptable to me in the early days of the runup to the war, as did H Clinton and as you say, many/most of the Dems (save people like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd). Even Henry Waxman voted for the IWR.

I am still too burned by 2000 and 2004 to get all revved up about the primaries. The best machine will roar to the top and then be lucky not to get mowed over by the cheaters in the Republican Secretaries of States' offices in pivotal states. OR California will change their electoral patterns via initiative on the ballot and then there will be no contest. Republicans will dominate like Musharaf in Pakistan.

November 17, 2007 12:31 PM
sparrow said:

_______________________________________________________________________

Sparrow, the last time the DCCC called. I gave them a piece of my mind as well and blasted Rahm Emmanuel, and reminded them that Nancy Pelosi is not required by law to allow any war funding bills to reach the House floor.

I also told them to remove me from their calling list. The same for the DSCC.

Monkey

I truly believe we are doomed as a nation, and the next several decades will be dark and wrought with peril... and it's the citizens fault (with the exception of the few brave ones who have put their nuts & bolts on the line to try to undo this nightmare ).

America let this happen to itself, but is entirely too lazy, stupid and cowardly to have stopped it.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Christy

I plan to vote for Edwards myself.
Even Kucinich is not doing it for me, based on his bankruptcy of Cleveland back in the day.
And Obama? He lost me when he hired a homophobic minister to reach out to black evangelical voters (and a white gay man to reach out to gays, cementing the blacks' perception that homosexuality is a white thing).

Reading about recession, housing market, the dollar.

Did you know Rupert Murdoch predicted $20/barrel oil if we went into Iraq?!

I like Richardson too.

But I still believe he is best suited to be Secretary of State. He would be excellent there.

His race however could be used to bitterly divide certain regions, like mine. It is sad, but it is reality. It could get very ugly. I suspect it will happen to Obama too.

He is certainly more experienced than Edwards, but Edwards is one that has virtually 0 baggage, not just because he is white, but because he really is the only one that has atleast had the guts to apologize for being wrong.

Right now we need a candidate that is as comfortable to as many people as possible. Our people are traumatized, and I am afraid one more dvisive leader in there will just be like throwing gasoline on fire.

Ralpheh

Hillary may have been pro-war in 2003, but so were many others, including many of us now here at DCP.

There were "evidences" of WMDs in Iraq, and even though we now know them to be false, most of us had no way of knowing that back then (or how criminal W would act in order to make this war happen).

What ultimately matters is how Hillary sincerely feels about the war, now. And as for withdrawing US troops from Iraq, even if we wanted them all back tomorrow, it won't be easy.

That said, Hillary will never be my first pick. But then, voting for Rudy, for me, would be signing my own death warrant.

(photo astrology.net)

Media Matters had an interesting summary of the roughly 1500 questions that have been posed to the candidates in the roughly 17 debates that have been staged this year. Here is a brief rundown of what they found.

Only one question has been asked about wiretapping, zero questions have been asked about FISA, yet there has been a question about whether the Constitution should be changed to allow Arnold to be president.

Nothing has been asked about renditions, nor "habeas corpus" (because it's Latin?), nor telecom liability, but would it be good for American to have Bill Clinton in the White House again?

Not once has anyone asked why the administration started its warrantless wiretapping long before the 9/11 attacks rather than in response to them, but candidates were asked what Halloween costumes they would wear.

No one has asked whether the President should order indefinite detention of American citizens with no charges, but one candidate was asked seriously about a UFO sighting.

No moderator has asked whether candidates agree with Bush's skeptical view on congressional oversight, but one candidate was asked about a preference for diamonds vs pearls.

Candidates were asked whether they preferred PC or Mac and this question turned out to be planted by a news network.

Why do journalists ignore the serious issues facing our country but instead foster the mentality of choosing who we'd have a beer with?

Media Matters reported an ACLU poll done a month ago in which 61% of Americans want the government to get a warrant before wiretapping conversations Americans have with people abroad. This sentiment cuts across every demographic, educational level, racial identification, political party, geographical location and income group measured. Americans basically do not want to be spied on by their government.

A majority of Americans wanted habeas corpus restored, Guantanamo closed, the power to determine who is an enemy combattant removed from the Preisent, torture ended as US policy, and the outlawing of eavesdropping without a court warrant. A majority of American did not feel Congress had done enough to check the powers of the president. A CNN poll, also recent, found that 69% of Americans considered waterboarrding torture and 58% felt it should be outlawed.

If Americans take these things seriously, why don't journalists?

CNN Accused of Rigging Debate Questions
TruthOut
Tobin Harshaw, who blogs for The New York Times as "The Opinionator," reported Friday that "Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred 'diamonds or pearls' at last night's debate, wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository."

http://www.silencedmajority.blogs.com

NMP

Murdoch ought to be stripped of his US Citizenship and put on the next QANTAS flight home.

Murdoch ought to be stripped of his US Citizenship and put on the next QANTAS flight home.

Nooooo Nooooo Nooooooo Ally, you got the BASTARD, you keep him.

Al Qaeda in Iraq – Heroes, Boogeymen or Puppets?
Posted by Malcolm Nance on July 9, 2007
Four years on in Iraq, the White House still portrays the war as a life and death struggle between the forces of good, the US led Multi-national forces, and the forces of evil, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).
With the advent of the new “surge” strategy, the media ledes have been triumphing the numerous coalition “anti-Al Qaeda” operations in Anbar province including the areas of Karmah, Baqubah and the Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad. These operations have the intent to secure Baghdad and other major urban areas from insurgent terrorism. The strategy writ simple is to deny the insurgents an urban sanctuary and killing ground as well as to secure the Iraqi population from their sectarian attacks through a series of wide-area operations. But are we fighting the right enemy?
A better question is whom are we fighting? The response heard most often is that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. In May 2007 the President declared “Al Qaeda is public enemy number one in Iraq.” The consensus opinion, from the Pentagon to the PFC, is that America is waging a desperate fight against Al Qaeda both in and out of Iraq and it will directly determine the national security on the streets of Europe and America. Additionally, for four years Abu Mussab Zarqawi, AQI’s first leader, was portrayed as the commander of the insurgency. It was an easily consumable media narrative so effective that even the Iraqis believed it until his death.
There is no question that Al Qaeda is a real threat but are they the main threat? Has AQI has been catapulted to the top of the insurgency by virtue of the fact that they carry out the most dramatic and sectarian attacks or hard intelligence? In fact, listening to Washington one would think that the coalition forces are pretty much fighting “All AQI. All the Time.” As with most things in Mesopotamia, this is not nearly so clear cut. The answer may or may not surprise you.
http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/07/al-qaeda-in-iraq-heroes-boogey/