A Riff on Ripples

Great inspiring quote, Karen.

Much as I'd like to believe it's true, a part of me wallows in all the negatives that take away that hope.

Afterall, it seems to me much like dog-paddling. You can dog-paddle for a while, and cause lots of ripples, and even hope that something or someone will come before you drown. But how long can a person dog-paddle before they just have no more energy to fight for that little bit of hope for improvement?

Here is something very inspiring as well.

Bay Buchanan on the Situation Room is reduced to the blathering idiot we all know she is. Great TV! FINALLY!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/29/the-situation-room-blitzer-meyers-wallop-buchanan-on-obama-name-smear/

Protestors greet Nancy

Hey Sparrow,

Go sleep for three days, avoid the news, make love to your man, and you will be ok girlfriend.

Christy,

Thanks for worrying about me. It is definitely the news that makes me feel hopeless. The economy is really bad! The fact is that a whole generation of people will grow up with either a huge debt, 100,000, if they go to college, because student grants and scholarships have been cut. Then if they're lucky they'll find a job in health care or in the military defense organizations. Everyone else will be working for minimum wage.

There is a sense of hopelessness with the students in my community college. They're getting technical degrees but they know that the cost/job ratio is still pretty scary.

I think for six years the criminals and the corporatists have infiltrated our system and I'm afraid it's broken permanently. (Honestly, I know Obama and Hillary are both better than a Republican but I'm afraid without single-payer that we're all going to get some sort of environmentally induced cancer (thanks to the six years of extreme pollutants being allowed into our food chain) and that we will either pay out mega-bucks in co-pays or will die without insurance.

I myself have insurance, but what about my kids or others?

And also...I'm sorry but this Siegelman thing really has me in the dumps too. Every time I think of that poor man shackled and manacled and held without an appeal time or without the 45 day period that most blue collar criminals get...well, his politically motivated persecution just scares the daylight out of me.

This is a scary, bad world and all the making love and sleep isn't going to help my doldrums. If the Governor can't escape a false persecution and imprisonment, then how will those of us lower on the food chain?

Abrams ended the segment making the obvious point: the incarceration of the former governor pending his appeal is just one more travesty in this entire seedy mess. He called for the Court of Appeals in Atlanta to order Siegelman’s immediate release pending appeal.

MSNBC Chief Calls for Release of Siegelman

NBC chief legal correspondent and MSNBC head Dan Abrams last night hosted a further detailed discussion focusing on the trial and sentencing of Don Siegelman. Abrams was joined by former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, a co-chair of the McCain for President leadership committee, and Vince Kilborn, an attorney for the imprisoned governor. This segment reviewed the conduct of Mark Everett Fuller, the federal judge who presided over the Siegelman case, refusing to recuse himself notwithstanding the fact that he previously make public statements suggesting he had a grudge against Siegelman, and as a member of the Alabama G.O.P.’s Executive Committee was directly involved in political campaigns against Siegelman. Abrams focused in on a number of serious irregularities that marked Fuller’s conduct of the trial:

It does happen in America: The political trial of Don Siegelman

By Paul Craig Roberts
February 29, 2008

Don Siegelman, a popular Democratic governor of Alabama, a Republican state, was framed in a crooked trial, convicted on June 29, 2006, and sent to Federal prison by the corrupt and immoral Bush administration. ..... What was the "crime" for which Siegelman and Scrushy were convicted? ..... Scrushy’s firm made a contribution to the Alabama Educational Trust, a charitable organization, to retire debt associated with the Alabama education lottery proposal. Scrushy was a member of Alabama’s Certificate of Need board, a nonpaid group that oversaw hospital expansion. Scrushy had been a member of the board through the terms of the prior three governors, and Siegelman asked him to serve another term.
Federal prosecutors claimed that Scrushy’s charitable contribution was a bribe to Siegelman in exchange for being appointed to the Certificate of Need board. In the words of federal prosecutor Stephen Feaga, the contribution was "given in exchange for a promise for an official act."

.....

How in the world did a jury convict two men of a non-crime?

The answer is that the US attorney used Governor Siegelman’s indicted young assistant, Nick Bailey, to create the impression among some of the jury that "something must have happened." Unbeknownst to Siegelman, Bailey was extorting money or accepting bribes from Alabama businessmen in exchange for state business. Bailey was caught. Presented with threats of a long sentence, Bailey agreed to testify falsely that Siegelman came out of a meeting with Scrushy and showed Bailey a $250,000 check he had accepted in exchange for appointing Scrushy to the Certificate of Need board. Prosecutors knew that Bailey’s testimony was false, not only because they had Bailey rewrite his testimony several times and rehearsed him until he had it down pat, but also because they had the check. The records show that the check, written to a charitable organization, was cut days after the meeting from which Siegelman allegedly emerged with check in hand.

.....

The prosecutors also had help from some jurors. On a WOTM Special Report hosted by former US Attorney Raymond Johnson, Alabama lawyer Julian McPhillips produced emails from two jurors about influencing other jurors in order to achieve a conviction. Jurors are not supposed to discuss a case outside the court or to consider information other than what is presented in court and allowed by the judge. The outside communication among the jurors is sufficient to declare a mistrial.
However, Federal District Judge Mark Fuller, a Bush appointee, ignored the tainted jury. Fuller himself was part of the prosecution. He bore a strong grudge against Siegelman. Fuller had been an Alabama district attorney before Bush made him a federal judge. Fuller’s successor as district attorney was appointed by Siegelman and produced evidence that Fuller had defrauded or attempted to defraud the state retirement system.

.....

But this brutish political persecution of Siegelman began with a stolen election in 2002.

Since the Republicans could not defeat Siegelman fairly and squarely, they resorted to election theft to seize power away from Governor Siegelman and the people of Alabama.

.....

The Bush Justice Department first went after Siegelman during his 2002 reelection campaign. When Siegelman was first elected in 1998, the Republican Alabama Attorney General, William Pryor, began investigating Siegelman. There was nothing to investigate, but his "investigation" was the entry for Leura Canary, who federalized the "investigation." Politically motivated leaks from the "investigation" were used in an effort to defeat Siegelman’s reelection.

It almost worked, but Siegelman narrowly won.

Unable to defeat Siegelman even with leaks from a phony investigation designed to smear him, the Republicans decided to steal the election. After all districts had reported the vote count, Siegelman thanked the voters for reelecting him and went to bed. During the night the Republicans, with no Democratic voting officials present, "recounted" the ballots in Baldwin County. Six thousand Siegelman votes that had been reported disappeared in the recount. The next morning Republican Bob Riley declared himself the winner.

The theft was so hastily arranged that the thieves forgot to change any of the other vote outcomes on the ballots. All other races had the same totals as originally reported, a statistical impossibility had there actually been a computer glitch as the election thieves claimed.
The Republican attorney general, Pryor, refused a recount. The Republican Justice Department and Republican federal judges looked the other way, as did the Republican propaganda sheets that masquerade as news media in Alabama.
President Bush rewarded William Pryor for his service by making him a federal judge in a recess appointment, as he could not be confirmed by the US Senate. According to MSNBC and other reports, investigations had produced more serious charges against Pryor than against Siegelman, but Pryor, being a chief Republican operative, was immune from prosecution.

The case against Siegelman was drawn out in the media for two more years in the hopes of smearing him forever. When Leura Canary’s false case was finally brought to court, Federal District Judge U.W. Clemon threw it out of court. Clemon cited an assistant US attorney and an assistant state attorney general for contempt of court. All charges against Siegelman and his co-defendants were dropped on October 5, 2004.
Vindicated, Siegelman began his campaign for recovering the governorship in 2006. The word came from Washington to get Siegelman at all costs. Siegelman was indicted a second time on October 26, 2005, costing him the Democratic primary. The jury twice deadlocked and was twice sent back by Siegelman’s adversary, Judge Fuller. With charges of jury tampering in the air, Siegelman was acquitted of 25 counts and found guilty of "pay for play." Judge Fuller had Siegelman handcuffed and manacled and immediately whisked off to prison for a seven-year sentence. Normally a non-dangerous person is left at liberty while the case is being appealed.

The Siegelman case makes it clear exactly what Bush, Rove, and the disgraced Bush flunky, Alberto Gonzales, intended by firing the eight Republican US attorneys. These eight refused to politicize their office by falsely prosecuting Democrats in order to achieve a Rovian political agenda. Apparently, there were only eight honest persons among the 1,200 Republican US attorneys. Bush, Rove, and Gonzales had no problem with the other 1,192.

.....

This case is "the reverse aspect" of the political firings of the US Attorneys. We saw what happened to those who would not play along with Karl Rove and the corrupt members of the Department of Justice. They were fired.

And here, we see what happened to those who carried out these Rove-orchestrated illegal acts; they were rewarded, promoted and shielded from any prosecution whatsoever.

Is this what America has come to on our watch?

Are arrest, indictment and prosecution in the future for these criminals?

If this can happen to a respected and honorable Governor, it can happen to any one of us.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3013.shtml

The Myth of the Surge
Hoping to turn enemies into allies, U.S. forces are arming Iraqis who fought with the insurgents. But it's already starting to backfire. A report from the front lines of the new Iraq

NIR ROSEN - Rolling Stone

Posted Mar 06, 2008 8:53 AM

It's a cold, gray day in December, and I'm walking down Sixtieth Street in the Dora district of Baghdad, one of the most violent and fearsome of the city's no-go zones. Devastated by five years of clashes between American forces, Shiite militias, Sunni resistance groups and Al Qaeda, much of Dora is now a ghost town. This is what "victory" looks like in a once upscale neighborhood of Iraq: Lakes of mud and sewage fill the streets. Mountains of trash stagnate in the pungent liquid. Most of the windows in the sand-colored homes are broken, and the wind blows through them, whistling eerily. House after house is deserted, bullet holes pockmarking their walls, their doors open and unguarded, many emptied of furniture. What few furnishings remain are covered by a thick layer of the fine dust that invades every space in Iraq. Looming over the homes are twelve-foot-high security walls built by the Americans to separate warring factions and confine people to their own neighborhood. Emptied and destroyed by civil war, walled off by President Bush's much-heralded "surge," Dora feels more like a desolate, post-apocalyptic maze of concrete tunnels than a living, inhabited neighborhood. Apart from our footsteps, there is complete silence.

My guide, a thirty-one-year-old named Osama who grew up in Dora, points to shops he used to go to, now abandoned or destroyed: a barbershop, a hardware store. Since the U.S. occupation began, Osama has watched civil war turn the streets where he grew up into an ethnic killing field. After the fall of Saddam, the Americans allowed looters and gangs to take over the streets, and Iraqi security forces were stripped of their jobs. The Mahdi Army, the powerful Shiite paramilitary force led by the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, took advantage of the power shift to retaliate in areas such as Dora, where Shiites had been driven from their homes. Shiite forces tried to cleanse the district of Sunni families like Osama's, burning or confiscating their homes and torturing or killing those who refused to leave.

"The Mahdi Army was killing people here," Osama says, pointing to a now-destroyed Shiite mosque that in earlier times had been a cafe and before that an office for Saddam's Baath Party. Later, driving in the nearby district of Baya, Osama shows me a gas station. "They killed my uncle here. He didn't accept to leave. Twenty guys came to his house, the women were screaming. He ran to the back, but they caught him, tortured him and killed him." Under siege by Shiite militias and the U.S. military, who viewed Sunnis as Saddam supporters, and largely cut out of the Shiite-dominated government, many Sunnis joined the resistance. Others turned to Al Qaeda and other jihadists for protection.

Now, in the midst of the surge, the Bush administration has done an about-face. Having lost the civil war, many Sunnis were suddenly desperate to switch sides — and Gen. David Petraeus was eager to oblige. The U.S. has not only added 30,000 more troops in Iraq — it has essentially bribed the opposition, arming the very Sunni militants who only months ago were waging deadly assaults on American forces. To engineer a fragile peace, the U.S. military has created and backed dozens of new Sunni militias, which now operate beyond the control of Iraq's central government. The Americans call the units by a variety of euphemisms: Iraqi Security Volunteers (ISVs), neighborhood watch groups, Concerned Local Citizens, Critical Infrastructure Security. The militias prefer a simpler and more dramatic name: They call themselves Sahwa, or "the Awakening."

~~more~~

Mukasey Refuses Probe of Bush Aides

By LAURIE KELLMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers committed no crime.

As promised, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she has given the Judiciary Committee authority to file a lawsuit against Bolten and Miers in federal court.

"The House shall do so promptly," she said in a statement.

Mukasey said Bolten and Miers were right in ignoring subpoenas to provide Congress with White House documents or testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.

"The department will not bring the congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Mr. Bolten or Ms. Miers," Mukasey wrote Pelosi.

Pelosi shot back that the aides can expect a lawsuit.

"The American people demand that we uphold the law," Pelosi said. "As public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks to do just that."

Sparrow

Re: hopeless news

This is precisely why I raised alarm at purchasing products from likes of Samsung or Toyota.

They may be foreign companies, and they are not even white men's companies, but they are still VERY guilty of tilting the American political landscape far to the right.

I do have a Samsung TV, but that was purchased before I knew of these connections. It's already dying, and it will be replaced with a more conscionable company's product.

In any case, this has gone so out of hand, to a point where waitresses driving half-demolished Honda Civics still think the Republicans are doing a fine job, even though it's the Republicans that are keeping them in those dead-end jobs and junk cars. And sorry, as much as I want to save these people, if they don't want to save themselves from this hellhole, I can't help them. (The evangelical Christians get much of the credit for this brainwashing.)

Also remember that Nazi Germany received lots of corporate help - not only from its ally Japan, but also from American companies (notably GM and Ford).

So the phenomenon of American fascism being underwritten by the likes of South Korea is NOT out of hand.

Ally,

Feel hope that in other parts of the country people are not so steeped in Republican ideology and the pain has woken them up.

You obviously live in the 20% solid red Bush supporting area.

Sparrow

You obviously live in the 20% solid red Bush supporting area.

You are ABSOLUTELY correct.

And to add, I work in a very pro-W industry (construction). I need to get out.

Ally,

I'm happy to still see Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers around here. I've seen a few "W's" but the fact that people kept those k-e bumper stickers on for 4 years says a lot! (I have seen a few Hillary or Obama stickers. No McCains or anyone other than Paul.)

Do your job or resign

Texas Early voting Shatters Records, Republicans Scared

Sparrow

K-E are long gone in my city. Some neighbors of mine still have W '04 out there. As I previously mentioned, during '04 I was the only one on my block not to have a Bush-Cheney lawn sign.

I did see an Obama sticker the other day, though I am just as likely to see Paul, Huckabee, or Romney.

There is a Costco about 5 miles away (in a heavily Chinese/Democratic area) where an employee is an evangelical Christian with that annoying "NOT OF THIS WORLD" decal, but s/he also carries a large Hillary sign.

Ed Schultz made a good point today. With the record turn-outs for the Democratic primaries, we may have a problem with having enough voting equipment in November. Of course they purposely messed up in 2004, so it would behoove Dean and the Democratic establishment to make sure that all of us can vote even if you need two or three day voting days. (AND DON"T LET THE MACHINES ERASE THE EARLY VOTES LIKE THEY DID IN N.C. IN 2004)

Ok. So I need to head to bed now. Sorry Ally...can't visit any longer. Maybe someone else is awake.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/180885.php

A supervisor at a motivational coaching business in Provo is accused of waterboarding an employee in front of his sales team to demonstrate that they should work as hard on sales as the employee had worked to breathe.

In a lawsuit filed last month, former Prosper, Inc. salesman Chad Hudgens alleges his managers also allowed the supervisor to draw mustaches on employees' faces, take away their chairs and beat on their desks with a wooden paddle "because it resulted in increased revenues for the company."

Prosper president Dave Ellis responded that the allegations amount to "sensationalized" versions of events that have gone uncorroborated by Hudgens' former coworkers.

"They just roll their eyes and say, 'This is ridiculous . . . That's not how it went down,' " Ellis said.

The suit claims that Hudgens' team leader, Joshua Christopherson, asked for volunteers in May for "a new motivational exercise," which he did not describe. Hudgens, who was 26 at the time, volunteered in order to "prove his loyalty and determination," the suit claims.

Christopherson led the sales team to the top of a hill near the office and told Hudgens to lie down with his head downhill, the suit claims. Christopherson then told the rest of the team to hold Hudgens by the arms and legs.

Christopherson poured water from a gallon jug over Hudgens' mouth and nostrils - like the interrogation strategy known as "waterboarding" - and told the team members to hold Hudgens down as he struggled, the suit alleges.

Will US Become World's Nuclear-Waste Dump?
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/022908EA.shtml
According to Mark Clayton of The Christian Science Monitor, "The federal government is weighing a Utah company's request to import large amounts of low-level radioactive waste from Italy - a step critics say could lead the United States to become a nuclear garbage dump for the world."

"If this can happen to a respected and honorable Governor, it can happen to any one of us."

What is happening to him is injustice, yes, but his high profile status is lucky for him. Had he not been who he was they would have murdered him outright.

After living with southern blacks most of my life, the 'it could happen to you' thing has always been real to me.

Someone mudered my aunt for no reason, and the cops here spent more time covering up her murder than they did investigating it. We can prove the sherriff fed a false confession to a serial killer, but, you know, who do you call that will care?

To me, Seigelman being held here is ominous, but no more foreboding than anything else that happens here.

The problem with Seigelman, is not that 'they will do this again'. It is that they have done it before, but, how many times and to whom?

Seigelman was atleast able to hold them off for years. How many went down on the first set of charges...?

By the way, anyone else catch the part about how Seigelman thought he won re-election, only to be awakened later that night and told he actually had lost, because there was some 'problem' with 'rural ballots'...?

Not sure about yall, but that SMACKS of the sound of rovian election fraud to me.

What gets me about this case is not how injust it is, it is how BOLD they were in pursuing it. They manipulated the local media to just not show it, then they proceeded to openly just wallow in it.

There is not even 1 degree of seperation between rove and the ones indicting and prosecuting him. The fact rove was personally so involved in it tells me they were desperate to get it done.

And it is just so damn sloppy. That is what gets me, how freaking sloppy and obvious it was.

On one hand though, it does provide a perfect example of how exactly the press lets power get away with murder in the south, and even helps bury the bodies for them.

Imagine if Seigelman had not been so high profile, just think of the million ways they could have made his story go away entirely.

If no one reports you are dead, or even missing, then it really doesn't matter who murdered you. Does it?

Headed to Mexico and will try to check in. Here's hoping March 4 settles some things so there is not so much deliberation and divisiveness. We need to unify around a candidate and get on with fixing our economy and stopping the war.

Winter Soldiers to Testify Against the War
Reporting for Truthout, Maya Schenwar writes, "Thirty-seven years ago, in the midst of a bitter-cold Michigan winter, 109 Vietnam veterans gathered at a Howard Johnson Motel auditorium in Detroit to tell their stories. For three days, they told of ransacking undefended villages, attacking civilians, mutilating bodies, torturing Viet Cong suspects, burning houses, destroying Vietnamese property and livestock and killing innocent children."

This year, from March 13 to 16, about 300 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will follow in the footsteps of their predecessors, gathering for a second Winter Soldier conference, in Silver Spring, Maryland. Organized by Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) it will make up the largest gathering ever of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Their mission? To tell the story of the war in the terms of those who have actually lived it. (see link above)

silencedmajorityportal

By LAURIE KELLMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers committed no crime.

As promised, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she has given the Judiciary Committee authority to file a lawsuit against Bolten and Miers in federal court.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Starting impeachment hearings would move things along very quickly and focus Congress, the Bushies and the nation on getting the truth out.

The Bush Justice Department doesn't care and is dragging its feet.

Pelosi's filing lawsuits in court will take years to play out, no?

Isn't that what Pelosi is hoping for?

HILLARY SLAMMING OBAMA IN NEW AD:

desperation has set in amongst the Clintonites..

Cheney Document Pushing For Global U.S. Military Dominance Released
"Prevent the Reemergence of a New Rival"

The Making of the Cheney Regional Defense Strategy, 1991-1992

Declassified Studies from Cheney Pentagon Show Push for U.S. Military Predominance and a Strategy to "Prevent the Reemergence of a New Rival"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb245/index.htm

Ignorant/racist/greedy entrepreneurs are cranking out t-shirts but cannot compete with the cool ones - see competing designs:
http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/2008/03/wingnuts-desper.html

Background on the ad
http://www.slate.com/id/2185492/
Please when posting this type of stuff give some contact. Ralph your "Stop Clinton" site has no contact information and you do not ever support a candidate. Why not phone bank or something or else work for an agency that makes this type of crap. I am now supporting another candidate but it is not because of the negative stuff about the other, though it didn't help. If anything, I held out longer in making my decision because of all the negative posts about Clinton. Chew on that for awhile.

"Prevent the Reemergence of a New Rival"

I dread even clicking that link. Just the phrase sounds insane.

BTW, things are looking even worse for Hillary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/01/AR2008030100894.html?hpid=topnews

We could bash Obama, but, he really does not have that many weaknesses. Everything that seems to be a drawback has turned into a strength. They are using the race baiting to try to drag him down into the gutter, but as long as he stays completely above it it simply melts away.

I don't think there is anything Hillary can do at this point. She is not facing an competitor but a phenomena.

It all seems so surreal.

White House Blocks Inquiry Into Iraq Embassy

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030108F.shtml

The Guardian UK's Elana Schor reports: "The Bush administration is blocking an inquiry into the delay-plagued construction of the $736 million US embassy in Baghdad, a senior Democrat in Congress said today."

I don't think there is anything Hillary can do at this point. She is not facing an competitor but a phenomena.

It all seems so surreal.

Wonderful isn't it, gives you faith back in the voting public.

Interesting article from Elizabeth about how what Dean started (50 state, internet grassroots, etc.) was possibly thwarted by establishment Dems who wanted to stay with the old model of party ops and "swing states" and ignore the rest.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20080317&s=berman

Ok I'm leaving for Mexico. I've been following the campaign sites, Real Clear Politics op eds, Polling.com, and most especially InTrade betting.

I predict:

- Hillary Clinton will win Ohio with a less than 5% margin
- Obama will win Texas by approximately 5%
- Obama will win Rhode Island by around 10%
- Obama will win Vermont by 15-20%

Excuse me - I will change Rhode Island to 5%

Is another war brewing? (Lebanon - evacuations ordered WTF)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/1/154735/0588/864/466950

Juan Cole cited 'United Press International from October 10, 1986 - MOSLEMS IN BUCKINGHAM PALACE

Mixed in with Queen Elizabeth's blue blood is the blood of the Moslem prophet Mohammed, according to Burke's Peerage, the geneological guide to royalty. The relation came out when Harold B. Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's, wrote Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to ask for better security for the royal family. ''The royal family's direct descent from the prophet Mohammed cannot be relied upon to protect the royal family forever from Moslem terrorists,'' he said. Probably realizing the connection would be a surprise to many, he added, ''It is little known by the British people that the blood of Mohammed flows in the veins of the queen. However, all Moslem religious leaders are proud of this fact.''

Brooks-Baker said the British royal family is descended from Mohammed through the Arab kings of Seville, who once ruled Spain. By marriage, their blood passed to the European kings of Portugal and Castille, and through them to England's 15th century King Edward IV. '
posted by Juan Cole @ Informed Consent

Ken G is a trivia expert and says Queen Elizabeth is part Greek and that came from a tradition of marrying off royalty to competing royalty, to prevent wars. It's similar to my brother's proposition that Jenna Bush be married off to a Palestinian and the couple would have to live here. My own bloodline is heavily Welsh/Irish with a dose of Turkish Arab. Silenced Majority Portal

meant "live there" - last part above (Jenna & hubby)

Just checking in....sort of.

My computer is melting down.

C'ya when I get it working again.

Good on-the-ground analysis of Texas rallies from Al Giordano:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-giordano/dueling-san-antonio-ralli_b_89383.html

supporting another candidate but it is not because of the negative stuff about the other, though it didn't help. If anything, I held out longer in making my decision because of all the negative posts about Clinton. Chew on that for awhile.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

You like to criticize Kucinich.

And you love to criticize John McCain

I love to criticize Hillary!!!

(who, BTW, has Iraqi blood on her hands - sorry for having to point out this awful truth. But occasionally someone has to mention the Huge Elephant in this election and I am not referring to a Republican candidate.)

I'll gladly support any of these Democratic candidates: Edwards, Obama, Kucinich or Gravel.

If Hillary is nominated, I will have to go into the voting booth with a gas mask on so I am not over-come by the toxic "Hillary vs McCain" fumes.

BTW #2 I cannot think of a more dull, political match-up - two aging, Uber-Insiders, both of whom have sold-out to the rightwing in order to advance their huge ambitions. VERY, VERY SAD INDEED.

Texas Early voting Shatters Records, Republicans Scared
by FishOutofWater
Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:13:20 PM PST

A massive Democratic turnout shattered previous early voting records in Texas, according to the Texas Secretary of State. Early voting ended Friday.

As of Thursday night 242,197 Republican voters had voted in person or voted by mail and 717,469 Democratic voters had completed early voting in the 15 largest counties according to Secretary of State of Texas.

The massive Democratic turnout has Republicans feeling blue.

@@@@@@@@@

LOL!!!!

EXCITEMENT

ENTHUSIASM

PARTICIPATION...

and all of this horrible stuff just because Hillary wasn't the "inevitable nominee"

Why not phone bank or something or else work for an agency that makes this type of crap.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

You suggestion to phone bank makes me all the more repulsed by the notion of phone banking for any candidate;

chew on that for awhile

This is why I am on Team Aniston, not Team Jolie:

http://justjared.buzznet.com/2008/02/29/rush-limbaugh-angelina-jolie/

So because limpball gets all gushy over Jolie, that somehow makes Jolie..ummm... bad?

Ummm, that is so wack girlfriend.

BTW, I am on Team Jolie. Pitt wanted kids, Aniston knew that yet decided belatedly she was not down with it.

Good men are hard to find, you snooze you loose.

Oh, and Aniston has yet to risk her fame in the name of politics.

I don't think she can act, but Jolie clearly came out the winner, while Aniston is still freaking out years later.

What did I do last night? Ok. I'll tell you.

Something happened to me last night, and I am still kinda freaked out about it myself. I think I will be for a long time.

My man and I were suddenly able to ditch all the kids, and we took up an invite from a cousin to come bar-be-que at their house with various friends and distant relations. Just as some context, most of the people there live directly off our domestic oilfields in one way or another.

So, we get over there and start mingling. One of their family friends was there with her 16 year old kid. Big, handsome kid, real polite.

Anyways after the fantastic ribs, and some great potato salad we are all just stuffed, and the kids are all put back in the playroom with a movie and we break out the Jack. Black label.

Just as we start really passing around the good time, my cousins wife was listening to some awful story someone was telling her about Iraq, and she said 'What in the hell is wrong with the world today?'

Without even thinking about it I said "bush. george bush is what is wrong.' Everyone kinda laughed and nodded.

Then this kid steps up to the kitchen island across from me, looks me straight in the eye and says 'Better him than a black man.'

My jaw just dropped and the whole room just froze. Me and this kid just stared at each other and I could literally feel my jaw dropping. I almost always see it coming, you can feel it, but he totally took me by surprise.

I asked him 'What did you say?' And he got this sneer and said 'What, you like Obama?' I mean, he had this look of real hatred on his face, just out of nowhere.

And before I could say anything he blurted out 'If Obama is elected he is going to close down the oilfields!' He absolutely believed it, said it almost in a panic.

Again, my jaw dropped and all the oilmen in the room just started snickering and shaking their heads, but me and this kid are still just staring at each other, me in total shock.

I knew I had to soften this kid. I truly felt at that moment the real danger of pushing him the wrong way.

I finally told him, 'Now go back to the other thing....I don't know where that came from, but it's ugly.' And for just a moment I did see him soften. He even took a step back, and blinked. Our eyes were locked the entire time.

I said, 'And on the other thing about the oilfields, you have got to stop watching Fox News. Just stop.'

He ALMOST nodded. And then the others just burst out in laughter, and that soft look was replaced with the most hateful sneer I have ever seen on the face of a child. He knew they were laughing at him, but I didn't mean for it to happen. It wasn't a joke.

He finally just hissed at me and turned around and stomped back out to the porch.

The only people who were not laughing was me and his mother, who also was staring at me, until I stared back, then she also turned away.

I then proceeded to get as drunk as I could, as fast as I could.

Most racists just make me feel scorn, but this kid made me weak with fear. He literally made me sick. I have been up since 3 am thinking about him, just feeling sick.

I am not sure if I handled that wrong or what, but it feels so damn wrong.

I should have dragged his mother outside and kicked the crap out of her. Atleast then I would not be squared off against a child spouting her beliefs.

E.Ghad. What a night. No wonder I rarely leave my house anymore.

Christy,

Your story gives me chills and I too am now thinking about it, on many levels.

Back on October 31, 2004, which was, I believe, the Sunday before the election, Richard and I got into our car. I was feeling hopeful; he was feeling nauseous. I asked him what was wrong. "I just have this sinking feeling that all over the country, people are in church, being told that George Bush is a good man and John Kerry is not."

What he meant, of course, was the lie that was perpetrated that Bush was an evangelical Christian, a compassionate conservative, and that John Kerry was a flip-flopper, a baby-killer, and a traitor.

Let's face it, in many parts of this country, that WAS the level of people's understanding of reality. Now, in fact, John Kerry still probably won that election, after one takes away the votes that were "reassigned" to Bush and counts the votes that were possibly tossed away or never counted (overseas ballots, military folks whose anti-Bush sentiments were known, Ohio, etc.). But we all came to believe, on some level, that ignorance and cynicism won that day.

I think it is the toxic combination of ignorance and cynicism that is responsible for most of our ills today, and I think that the combination is what you witnessed last night as well.

One of the most heartbreaking aspects of the Kerry campaign was the injection of contempt that came in with certain key advisors (not Bob Schrum, by the way). There was contempt for the voters and scorn for the hopeful. The far left, of which I am, at heart, a member, did not help; from that sector came suspicion and distrust of all things political.

You are also right about Fox News and much of the MSM being purveyors of ignorance. We have all seen that.

Even as we, here, have spent the past four years transcending (when we can anyway) ignorance and cynicism, we have also been, on occasion, swimming in the backwaters of what is out there. I see this current election as a veritable struggle between ignorance and cynicism and insight and hope.

There is such yearning for insight and hope, I feel the leaning forward of all of us. For a moment last night, you saw the yearning in that young man, but the ignorance/cynicism of the environment won out.

So here is the bind: we have to fight against cynicism at the same time we cannot be naive or ignore it. Those who snicker--and they are EVERYWHERE and many of them work at high levels on both sides of the aisle--must be stared down and questioned.

Those who are ignorant must be confronted but not in such a way that they retreat into cynicism. NMP has often said "Tell them something they do not know." I think that is brilliant, because when we can do that without directly challenging what they think they DO know, a little bit of light enters.

And so here, is MY hope for today: it is Sunday. I hope that in churches all across the country, preachers are fighting AGAINST ignorance and cynicism, because they too have seen that the price we have paid is too high. I also hope that your young man was not so humiliated by the snickering that he goes out to do something in retaliation, as so many do, but that he finds a way to understand his own yearning to believe and hope.

Lighting a candle anyway...for you and all of us.

Karen, the most important thing about last night, was that it was a TYPICAL barbeque.

The only thing rare about it was this time, I was challenged by a KID.

When he hissed at me, I clenched my fist at my side, my man saw it and bristled, but I wasn't expecting the boy to charge me, I could literally feel him slipping out of my hands. I can still feel it in my fingers.

My problem is I am a sucker for good bar-be-que and cousin Kevin makes awsome ribs. I was lured.

That room did not freeze because he said that about a black man, it froze because I did. Had I not been there, I doubt it would have been challenged at all. It rarely is.

Christy,

I fully understand that the snickers were not at the kid. But his biggest fear--being taken down by a GIRL--was met. Those men were snickering at your beliefs and at the fact that you were bein' ornery, as usual. But the kid was humiliated on several levels.

How dare we question? How naive of us to believe in peace, and truth, and human kindness!

So I am still lighting that candle. Also, please send cousin Kevin's address and the date for the next bar-b-que, because we would hate to miss it. You KNOW how much Richard loves good ribs...

WANT EXPERIENCE??? VOTE OLD MAN MCCAIN!!!!

(Sorry NMP, I couldn't resist)

Actually Karen, they were lauging at him, and it started when he tried the 'Obama will shut down the oilfields.'

A room full of oil men who go onto rigs and proccessing stations every day, they know better. I don't care what kind of superstar Obama is, he will never get big enough to do that. He picked the wrong audience to try and sell that line on.

I have no idea where he got that idea, but Fox News just seemed plausible. It really wasn't meant as a joke, but fox news IS a joke, and that kid took it real bad.

Christy

Good job with that kid, though I agree with you that you should've kicked his mom's behind hard.

Fox News gets away with ridiculous things, and this reveals another thing about the American society: with crumbling school systems, Americans are as dumb as ever, and some Australian or Korean filth can corrupt them beyond hope.

Christy

Jolie gave Rush some fresh ammunition, intentionally or not.

And Aniston has more class.

Hence I will remain on Team Aniston. End of story. :)

Karen et al

I will forever be convinced that even without all the alleged cheating, W won the 2004 election, thanks to the brilliant, nasty tactics of Karl Rove.

Getting the evangelicals out to vote, to ban gay marriages, was more than enough.

Even in my "blue state" I saw a flood of VIVA BUSH (and still do), whereas "Unidos con Kerry Edwards" was nowhere to be found. That means only one thing: W won the Latino vote with his homophobia, something confirmed by all the polls nationwide.

Ally,

Regarding the Op-ed Jolie wrote, there are many things in it that are worthy and valuable.

She was there. She's trying to use her celebrity status as well as her mind and charitable skills to help people. I don't fault her for that.

You have to read the article in its entirety before you start getting upset at what she said. Out of a WHOLE article there is only one small section that Rush or Republicans can use to gain support for their ideas, and even that paragraph isn't as clear cut as they'd have you believe.

But the MOST IMPORTANT thing about the article that Rush and others are intentionally ignoring is the fact that Angelina Jolie lays out a factual and detailed list of all the failures and how those failures have destroyed lives, and then she leads up to the dialogues she's had with people to promote humanitarian aid.

The titles on a google search are quite deceiving. And Rush's comments and the Republican's spin is deceiving as well.

The part I've snipped is related to the meaning of "Bring them home" here...and there, in Iraq. Yet, even though I snipped it (in order to prevent copy-right questions) it's vital to the whole idea of what has happened in Iraq.

The people are gone. They're refugees. The middle-east has absorbed the refugees as best as possible, but the uncertainty of their return, the uncertainty of how the other countries can maintain these refugees, and the uncertainty of how those people will be able to survive is the key part of the op-ed. And it is that key part that Rush and the Republicans have ignored for 6 years and have left out of their recent tirades (joyful thunder) of her op-ed.

But you don't have to believe their tirades. Here is the original article. Read the whole thing.

Right from the start she does not say that the surge was a success. And anyone who spins it that way is lying to you. She discusses how ONLY WITHIN the last week has there been progress made. That in itself refutes the Rush and Republican 'spin' that the surge was a success.

(snip)

In the six months since my previous visit to Iraq with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this humanitarian crisis has not improved. However, during the last week, the United States, UNHCR and the Iraqi government have begun to work together in new and important ways.

She goes on to discuss the failure of the previous actions and how even now we do not know where the Iraqius have been displaced to or how they are surviving. THAT IS A FAILURE that she addresses! But most headlines are not telling you that. And neither is Rush.

She says,

We still don't know exactly how many Iraqis have fled their homes, where they've all gone, or how they're managing to survive. Here is what we do know: More than 2 million people are refugees inside their own country -- without homes, jobs and, to a terrible degree, without medicine, food or clean water. Ethnic cleansing and other acts of unspeakable violence have driven them into a vast and very dangerous no-man's land. Many of the survivors huddle in mosques, in abandoned buildings with no electricity, in tents or in one-room huts made of straw and mud. Fifty-eight percent of these internally displaced people are younger than 12 years old.


An additional 2.5 million Iraqis have sought refuge outside Iraq, mainly in Syria and Jordan. But those host countries have reached their limits. Overwhelmed by the refugees they already have, these countries have essentially closed their borders until the international community provides support.

Look...if those were in bullets instead paragraphs people might understand the tremendous impact on the Iraq people. Her words, speaking about what the Iraqis people have endured is not all that different from anything we've said. The people in Iraq have encountered Hell, and nobody is actually helping them.

So, now Angelina Jolie says it's our moral obligation to help them, for the world to help them, and for us to give them humanitarian aid.

She says,

I'm not a security expert, but it doesn't take one to see that Syria and Jordan are carrying an unsustainable burden. They have been excellent hosts, but we can't expect them to care for millions of poor Iraqis indefinitely and without assistance from the U.S. or others.

Look...it IS our moral obligation to help them. But the how to help them is the vital difference. Naturally, they need competent and real leadership in Iraq as well as competent and compassionate leadership here. They need a vital support system to help provide that humanitarian aid, and NOW IS MOST CERTAINLY THE TIME! Hell...it was time 6 years ago too. But you can't change the past. So she emphasizes the NOW is the time to impliment that humanitarian aid (before the situation gets worse).

Then she gives another INDICTMENT of the situation and what needs to be changed--improved--and where that deficit will cause even more problems.

She is spot on! Read it:

One-sixth of Jordan's population today is Iraqi refugees. The large burden is already causing tension internally.

What happens to those internal problems when they become so horrible that they bubble up and over...?

She is laying a solid foundation of past failures and future problems. AND she's laying the foundation for asserting WHY we need to have humanitarian aid NOW!

Then she relays the information of the meetings she's had with people in order to promote humanitarian aid to the Iraq people.

She is doing a hell of a good job advocating that aid and then tells us what her recent conversations held.

She writes:

It will be quite a while before Iraq is ready to absorb more than 4 million refugees and displaced people. But it is not too early to start working on solutions. And last week, there were signs of progress.

In Baghdad, I spoke with Army Gen. David Petraeus about UNHCR's need for security information and protection for its staff as they re-enter Iraq, and I am pleased that he has offered that support. General Petraeus also told me he would support new efforts to address the humanitarian crisis "to the maximum extent possible" -- which leaves me hopeful that more progress can be made.

UNHCR is certainly committed to that. Last week while in Iraq, High Commissioner António Guterres pledged to increase UNHCR's presence there and to work closely with the Iraqi government, both in assessing the conditions required for return and in providing humanitarian relief.

During my trip I also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has announced the creation of a new committee to oversee issues related to internally displaced people, and a pledge of $40 million to support the effort.

My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis.

Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq -- and the potential consequences for our national security -- are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?

Then she calls upon the Presidential candidates to discuss this humanitarian aid and plan for it. Another way she's spot-on correct!

Read it.

What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons. That is not a small amount of money -- but it is less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq.I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy.

So here comes the one tineytiny sentence/paragraph that Rush and the Republicans spin as being "WE MUST STAY IN IRAQ..." And I think they are seeing more to it than what is really there.

She states what people she has spoken to have said. And she has not said the surge was a success.

Read it.

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

"They have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up..."

Now take that in conjunction with her statement right off the bat, "Only in the past week..."

Do you understand?

She did not say the surge was a success. She did not state that the troops should stay indefinitely. Some troops want to stay and she reported that. Since when is reporting the truth unwelcomed around here?

The fact is that the troops have been trained to do their job. They've been trained to support the goals of the US. I doubt that you'd have found a soldier willing to say, "Hell no we must go!" because that soldier would find themselves transported to even deeper danger if they had said that.

So she said, 'The troops who I spoke to..."

Besides, if the troops feel "invested in Iraq" then that too supports her advocacy for humanitarian aid.

The troops would want that too. Especially if they're invested.

In the meantime, she has laid out a heck of case. She itemizes the failures, the future problems, the discussions she's had, and the reason why the Iraqis people MUST GET that humanitarian aid. And she lays out why it's so important for the whole middle-east situation to give it to them.

Bottom line, Team Jolie is in for a penny and a pound, while Team Aniston bemoans what could have been.

I really, really do not like watching Jolie act. (The word 'overactor' comes to mind), but I have to admit, she fascinates me in every other way.

While Aniston is busy being 'classy', Jolie is trying to singlehandedly change the world. It is endearing.

I would much rather my own daughters see Jolie as a role model, seriously, what kind of example has Aniston set about anything important? I mean, really can't she just get over it already and move on?

BTW Karen, I forgot to add, if you are ever in the region, and if Richard is as serious as a southerner about ribs, I would be most glad to hook you up with Cousin Kevin. He has a magic grill.

THE NEW YORK TIMES (TO THEIR CREDIT) WROTE AN EDITORIAL ABOUT DON SIEGELMAN SEVEN MONTHS AGO - June 30, 2007 - SINCE THEN THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS HAS DONE LITTLE OR NOTHING ON THIS ( I don't even recall the Siegelman case coming up during the Gonzales flap or at Mukasey's confirmation!!!!!!)

QUOTING FROM THE TIMES EDITORIAL:

The most arresting evidence that Mr. Siegelman may have been railroaded is a sworn statement by a Republican lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson. Ms. Simpson said she was on a conference call in which Bill Canary, the husband of the United States attorney whose office handled the case, insisted that “his girls” would “take care of” Mr. Siegelman. According to Ms. Simpson, he identified his “girls” as his wife, Leura Canary, and another top Alabama prosecutor. Mr. Canary, who has longstanding ties to Karl Rove, also said, according to Ms. Simpson, that he had worked it out with “Karl.”

snip

Congress, though, should not wait. It should insist that Mr. Canary and everyone on the 2002 call, as well as Mrs. Canary and Mr. Rove, testify about the Siegelman prosecution. In standing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales throughout the attorneys scandal, the Bush administration has made clear that it does not care about the integrity of the Justice Department. By investigating Mr. Siegelman’s case, Congress can show that it does.

BTW...I just want to add...

The people who think that this was a kick against 'liberals' are dreaming. Ninety-five percent of that piece was a slam agaisnt everything that has been done to the Iraqis people. IT's a slam against their incompetence. And it's a slam against anyone who dares think that the 'job is done' if there is no humanitarian aid getting started in that region immediately.

NYT's did a piece about Siegelman, but where did it appear? Was it front paged?

If not, then it's pretty much like they did the story but hid it at the same time. All of us are fully aware that info on page 10 is not seen by as many as info placed on page one.

As far as the "Aniston has more class..." I disagree. I think it takes a lot more class to work so hard for humanitarian causes as Jolie does. Besides, unless we opt to become the fascists who refuse to allow free independent thinking, then it's really not fair to hate on someone who is working to improve peoples' lives.

Differences of opinions are ok. Involvement is what is important.

Oh..I will say that Jolie has a different belief on what needs to happen next. I am not sure that she is simply stating that the troops need to be their. I see the 'material support' and 'financial support' as being something much broader than just troops being there. I see it as a way of saying that we have to find a way to financially support and aid--be it troops or help of other types--and that we can't just ignore the damage that has happened in Iraq when/if the troops pull out. So I can at least say that the difference in opinion is fine as long as the person has tried to educate themselves about the situation, and clearly she has!

Wouldn't it be nice if the dems in congress cared MORE about Seigelman than they do steroids in baseball?

Too bad the priorities of the dems at the top long ago quit resembling in any way the other 95% of the parties priorities.

Just think of all the good they COULD HAVE done, but just can never muster themselves to accomplish.

If Seigelman is going to get sprung, it will be because of WE The People, not any politician. They could have ALREADY sprung him, if they wanted too. If they intended to, it would have been done already.

Just like these charges would have happened by both Dems and 'moderate' Republicans, if they really cared about the rule of law and keeping corruption out of gov't.

Do you know what worries me most about the notion we can not dissent against our own?

We have seen for a fact, in these times of the bushevik, that our own can not really be trusted to do the right thing any more than theirs could. Seigelman is a perfect example. Why have there been no hearings on this along with EVERYTHING ELSE that will implicate duh leader?

In fact, theirs could not have done what they did, or anything else, without flat out turncoats in our OWN party coluding with them to defraud our people.

I am so tempted to keep asking, 'Exactly WTF Does John Conyers do with his days and nights?'

And then, I chuckle to myself and think, 'Nevermind, because if it isn't impeachment, he is not doing his job.' Every time I think about him the term 'retroactive-impeachment' goes through my mind and I just get p*ssed off all over again.

To me the worst thing we can do is try to quell dissent against our own. Our own should be amongst the first we hold up as an example, because their betrayal was even more trecherous.

We live in times of war criminals and politicians literally making millions and millions and hundreds of millions of dollars on death and lies. Even our own are doing it, it is undeniable.

After the Conyers and Nancy Clown Act, I say only God can be trusted, everyone else should prove it.

So far, I am not seeing a damn thing get dealt with. Has anything truly been addressed AT ALL for years now? Really, think about it. WHY is there a perpetual lack of any attempt to address any of the major bush scandals in congress?

Bloody convienant, isn't it?

Something is still terribly wrong. This whole Seigelman just makes my nerves twitch.

Why have his fellow dem allies not even BOTHERED to find out what happened to him?

Nancy Pelosi not only took impeachment 'off the table', but by doing so, she also literally removed an almost certain chance she herself would have been elevated into the office in the wake of bush/cheney going to jail.

The case against them is so strong, she literally would have been installed as interim president herself. A virtual assurance that she would be the first woman president of the USA, even if only for a minute.

Yet, she inexplicably swept that off the table, along with the most coveted and ultimate tool of power anyone could ever wield over a head of state.

WHY. Why IN GODS NAME would she do that?

She's either stupid, corrupt, or sold her soul to have the Speaker position.

Holy Crap.

Chavez has closed his embassy in Bogata and sent ten battalions to the borders of Columbia.

Oh. Hell.

Chavez warns of war with Colombia

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Chavez_warns_of_war_with_Colombia_03022008.html

Or she opted for an easy life with notoriety

Woz,

I don't think she opted for that. I really think it's someone behind the scenes who allowed her to be speaker as long as she wouldn't put impeachment on the table.

That's what I meant, sparrow.

NYT's did a piece about Siegelman, but where did it appear? Was it front paged?

If not, then it's pretty much like they did the story but hid it at the same time. All of us are fully aware that info on page 10 is not seen by as many as info placed on page one.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The piece I quoted from was THEIR EDITORIAL PAGE... But the Times is well noted for all their editorials about the Bush administration which go right up to the line of "impeachment" AND THEN STOP.

Congress and the NYTimes ought to know by now that Bush/Cheney/Mukasey ARE NOT GOING TO COOPERATE short of the threat of impeachment.

KARL ROVE WILL NOT TESTIFY

HARRIET MIERS WILL NOT TESTIFY

JOSH BOLTEN WILL NOT TESTIFY

MUKASEY WILL NOT TURN-OVER DOCUMENTS

MUKASEY WILL NOT INVESTIGATE

MUKASEY WILL NOT INDICT...

etc..etc..etc..

Will the Times call for impeachment?

Will Pelosi?

Will Conyers?

If it was a 'political prosecution' because he was a 'democrat', why did the democrat congress NEVER address it? You would think it would be a vital matter of selfpreservation.

If Seigelman is a martyr for the dems, why did the dem congress not already come to his aide?

The more I think about that, the more startling it seems.

Ok so at the risk of blogwh**ing...

An undecided voter on the Obama blog (where I'm afraid I've been hanging out) pointed out that the president can't accomplish anything without Congress enacting legislation; so why do we vote for candidates whose legislative ideas or policies we support? Why should we vote for Obama, or Clinton, or McCain, if their policy/legislative proposals don't matter?

And here was my response...
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/veritasblog/gGgBm8

Come comment!!

V--I have to admit, I spend more time at the Obama site on the "contact me" link. It's under 'issues'. Then it has a link for email and a different link for 'discuss policy.' That's where you can find me lurking, and emailing away. I'm sure they're sick of hearing from me!

US Quietly Breaks UN Treaty

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022608A.shtml

Leslie Griffith, writing for Truthout, says: "On Friday, at a United Nations meeting in Geneva, the United States broke a series of legal promises. Keeping those promises would have proved extremely embarrassing to the United States government by pointing out that human rights abuses are being committed here at home and at US military installations abroad."

Sen. Christopher Dodd to Endorse Obama

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022608D.shtml

Andrew Miga, reporting for The Associated Press, writes, "Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut plans to endorse former presidential rival Barack Obama."

Coordinator Quits Gulf Recovery Job

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030208G.shtml

The Washington Post's Spencer S. Hsu says, "The Bush administration's federal coordinator of long-term hurricane recovery efforts on the Gulf Coast resigned unexpectedly yesterday, acknowledging frustration at the slow pace of rebuilding but expressing confidence that the foundation for progress is in place."

Man Acquitted in Terror Case Faces Deportation

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030208Y.shtml

Peter Whoriskey, reporting for The Washington Post, writes, "The case of the 'Liberty City Seven' stymied jurors. After a three-month trial late last year, they deadlocked on nearly all of the charges regarding the purported plot by several men to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago. The one thing jurors could agree upon, however, was that one of the men, Lyglenson Lemorin, 33, was not guilty."

Saudis urged to leave Lebanon :

The Saudi Arabian embassy in Beirut has called on its nationals to leave Lebanon a day after a US warship was positioned off the country's coast.

http://tinyurl.com/3camox

**new FUN thread**